Rules Team Rulings: 2/21/96

49 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to

GENERAL RULINGS

1) If a vote is called with a political action card, the vote provided by
that card is considered to be cast by the acting player, not the acting
vampire. This affects which types of cards can influence the first vote.
For example, if Sarah Cobbler calls for a Parity Shift, Astrid Thomas
couldn't use her special ability to influence the vote that was provided by
the card.

2) The result of an action depends on what equipment and other cards a
minion had when the action was successfully performed, not what it had when
the action was started.

Example: Raven takes an action to burn a location with a Bomb and is
blocked. During the combat, she uses the Bomb for a strike, and later plays
Form of Mist to end the combat and continue the action. Even if the action
isn't blocked again, the location couldn't be burned, since Raven no longer
has the Bomb.

3) If you put a retainer that requires a Discipline into play by a means
other than employing it (such as with Darius' ability), treat it as though
it had been brought into play with the basic version of the Discipline.

4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
Lucky Blow.

5) If control of a card is returned to a player who has been ousted, the
card is burned.

Example: Aleph is brought into play by Lacroix, but is quickly slammed into
torpor by a Tremere. Nick takes control of him with Graverobbing, and
Janette later takes control of the Malkavian with Dementia. If Nick is
ousted before her next untap phase, Aleph will be burned when she returns
control of him to Nick.

REVERSALS

None detected.

ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES

1) Regina Giovanni reduces the cost of any ally or retainer she employs or
recruits by 1; both blood and pool costs can be affected by this.

2) Disguised Weapon should be worded as follows:
"Usable only before range is chosen. Choose a weapon in your hand. Equip
this vampire with that weapon. Pay cost to equip as normal.
As above, but usable when choosing a strike."

3) In the basic rules, a vampire is burned only if you steal more blood
than it has.

4) The second sentence of Smiling Jack should refer to "each other
Methuselah".

5) If a vampire blocks an Archon, he or she burns 1 blood regardless of
which action the Archon was taking. (The use of the semi-colon in the V:TES
text implies that the point of blood is burned only when the Archon is
using his or her rush ability.)

CARD RULINGS

1) The subject of Banishment is put into his or her owner's inactive
region, as the card doesn't specify otherwise.

2) The damage dealt by Riposte happens during strike resolution and is
simply unpreventable. Cards like Dawn Operation will therefore apply to
this damage.

3) Wasserschloss Anif can only receive blood from one Tremere in any given
turn.

4) Ammo cards are played before any strikes take effect regardless of
whether those strikes deal damage or not. Thus, if a vampire who plays
Dragon's Breath Rounds is slammed by Rotschreck, the combat will end before
either strike does anything.


Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
>effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
>Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
>Lucky Blow.

Then it is not a melee weapon. Which it is, as printed.

>ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES

>2) Disguised Weapon should be worded as follows:
>"Usable only before range is chosen. Choose a weapon in your hand. Equip
>this vampire with that weapon. Pay cost to equip as normal.
>As above, but usable when choosing a strike."

Does this wording make it work the way it should (no cycling), or the way
you've said it does (play without a weapon) - I can't tell what is clarified
here.

>CARD RULINGS


>2) The damage dealt by Riposte happens during strike resolution and is
>simply unpreventable. Cards like Dawn Operation will therefore apply to
>this damage.

But the damage is then irrelevent. VtES rulebook:
Combat Ends: This effect ends combat immediately before any damage is dealt
or a strike card's effects take place.

So, combat ends, and the (unpreventable, aggravated) damage is never dealt.
Situation: Normal.

>4) Ammo cards are played before any strikes take effect regardless of
>whether those strikes deal damage or not. Thus, if a vampire who plays
>Dragon's Breath Rounds is slammed by Rotschreck, the combat will end before
>either strike does anything.

Will the weapon be burned in this case (by DBR)?

--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | File Not Found...
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Delete User instead? (Y/y)
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
>>effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
>>Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
>>Lucky Blow.
>Then it is not a melee weapon. Which it is, as printed.

Being a melee weapon does not entail being able to deal damage.

>>ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES
>>2) Disguised Weapon should be worded as follows:
>>"Usable only before range is chosen. Choose a weapon in your hand. Equip
>>this vampire with that weapon. Pay cost to equip as normal.
>>As above, but usable when choosing a strike."
>Does this wording make it work the way it should (no cycling), or the way
>you've said it does (play without a weapon) - I can't tell what is clarified
>here.

It changes it to prevent cycling.

>>CARD RULINGS
>>2) The damage dealt by Riposte happens during strike resolution and is
>>simply unpreventable. Cards like Dawn Operation will therefore apply to
>>this damage.
>But the damage is then irrelevent. VtES rulebook:
> Combat Ends: This effect ends combat immediately before any damage is dealt
> or a strike card's effects take place.

Riposte breaks the rules.

>>4) Ammo cards are played before any strikes take effect regardless of
>>whether those strikes deal damage or not. Thus, if a vampire who plays
>>Dragon's Breath Rounds is slammed by Rotschreck, the combat will end before
>>either strike does anything.
>Will the weapon be burned in this case (by DBR)?

Yes. Simply using DBR is enough to burn the gun (card text).

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:


>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
>>>effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
>>>Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
>>>Lucky Blow.
>>Then it is not a melee weapon. Which it is, as printed.

>Being a melee weapon does not entail being able to deal damage.

But playing Lucky Blow "adds one to the damage done" by a melee weapon

You say (in the case of Burning Wrath) that any added damage is
distinct from the original strike, but here you say that it is tied to
the original strike. Which is correct?

If its damage cannot be modified, *why* is it a melee weapon?

>>>CARD RULINGS
>>>2) The damage dealt by Riposte happens during strike resolution and is
>>>simply unpreventable. Cards like Dawn Operation will therefore apply to
>>>this damage.
>>But the damage is then irrelevent. VtES rulebook:
>> Combat Ends: This effect ends combat immediately before any damage is dealt
>> or a strike card's effects take place.

>Riposte breaks the rules.

I understand that cards breaks the rules, but neither Riposte nor your
answer have given it the rule-breaking ability it needs to deal its
damage successfully. It only breaks the rules by 1) giving a
non-inherent strike to a vampire. 2) Dealing damage (you say during a
strike resolution which will never come) that cannot be prevented.

It only says the damage is not preventable. So you deal damage (which you
mistakingly say happens during combat) and it ends combat.
In so doing both of those, it prevents its own damage, as per the rules
on ending combat.

Either it does its damage during strike resolution and you add elaborate
text to simulate ending combat after strike resolution while undoing the
opposing minion's strike as errata to the card, or you let it (as simple
imspection implies) deal its damage after it ends combat.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>>4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
>>>>effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
>>>>Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
>>>>Lucky Blow.
>>>Then it is not a melee weapon. Which it is, as printed.

>>Being a melee weapon does not entail being able to deal damage.

>But playing Lucky Blow "adds one to the damage done" by a melee weapon

>You say (in the case of Burning Wrath) that any added damage is
>distinct from the original strike, but here you say that it is tied to
>the original strike. Which is correct?

>If its damage cannot be modified, *why* is it a melee weapon?

Sorry for this second reply, but I was momentarily suckered by your
dichotmous ruling. A better rebuttal would be:

Since you say "Strikes only deal damage if they say they do.",

And both Lucky Blow and Undead Strength are strikes which say they deal
damage,

How can you put these two together and say that Lucky Blow nor Undead
Strength will deal damage when used with a Rowan Ring?

Are you assuming that the Ring, rather than the Lucky Blow, is the Strike
even though Lucky Blow is clearly marked as a strike (like Burning Wrath)
that is based on another form of strike (Hands/ Melee Weapon)?

Petri Wessman

unread,
Feb 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/25/96
to
On 21 Feb 1996 21:48:14 GMT, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) said:

Tom> 1) Regina Giovanni reduces the cost of any ally or retainer she employs or
Tom> recruits by 1; both blood and pool costs can be affected by this.

Yay! Regina Giovanni has regained her rightful position in my "Night
of the Living Dead" deck.

//Petri

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>Being a melee weapon does not entail being able to deal damage.
>But playing Lucky Blow "adds one to the damage done" by a melee weapon

*If* it does damage in the first place. Failing to mention damage doesn't mean
a weapon's strike has an assumed "0 damage" that you can build on; it means
that the strike simply can't deal damage.

>You say (in the case of Burning Wrath) that any added damage is
>distinct from the original strike, but here you say that it is tied to
>the original strike. Which is correct?

These are two separate issues. With Burning Wrath, the question is whether
a strike will inherit qualities of additional damage applied to it. Here,
the question is whether a strike that doesn't mention damage an deal damage
at all (and the answer is that it can't).

>If its damage cannot be modified, *why* is it a melee weapon?

Probably they just labeled all weapons that had non-ranged strikes as
"melee weapons", except for deliberate exceptions like Chainsaw, without
really thinking about the "does it do damage?" question.

>>Riposte breaks the rules.
>I understand that cards breaks the rules, but neither Riposte nor your
>answer have given it the rule-breaking ability it needs to deal its
>damage successfully. It only breaks the rules by 1) giving a
>non-inherent strike to a vampire. 2) Dealing damage (you say during a
>strike resolution which will never come) that cannot be prevented.
>
>It only says the damage is not preventable. So you deal damage (which you
>mistakingly say happens during combat) and it ends combat.
>In so doing both of those, it prevents its own damage, as per the rules
>on ending combat.

My point is that it breaks the rules by dealing damage in spite of the
fact that it is ending combat.

>Either it does its damage during strike resolution and you add elaborate
>text to simulate ending combat after strike resolution while undoing the
>opposing minion's strike as errata to the card, or you let it (as simple
>imspection implies) deal its damage after it ends combat.

Or, I take option c), which is to continue to allow it to implicitly break
the rules.

Hunter Johnson

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
In article <4gqu6i$i...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>Being a melee weapon does not entail being able to deal damage.
>>But playing Lucky Blow "adds one to the damage done" by a melee weapon
>
>*If* it does damage in the first place. Failing to mention damage doesn't mean
>a weapon's strike has an assumed "0 damage" that you can build on; it means
>that the strike simply can't deal damage.

ROTFL! Failing to mention damage *means* that the card that *fails*
to mention it *can't* deal damage.

This has to be one of the funniest rulings ever. I'm hoping this is
restricted to library cards, or my crypt is going need a drastic
overhaul.

Maybe cards that fail to mention Sudden Reversal can't be reversed.

You know, closer to "reality", cards that fail to mention "aggravated"
shouldn't be able to deal aggravated damage. Makes as much sense.

Hunter
-- /\
J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj
GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhun...@io.com for GURPS bib.
& Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-e...@io.com
"Exotic Dancer Barbie does not bump or grind by herself."


Hunter Johnson

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
In article <4groa0$c...@shellx.best.com>, REF <refp...@best.com> wrote:
>Actually I think this makes perfect sense and this discussion is more
>concerned with rules lawyerism.
>Rory

Maybe it makes sense for a particular card, but the general rule as
stated leaves a little to be desired.

It would have made just as much sense to make the weapon non-melee, as
Tom has already stated that the writer(s) probably didn't take this
possibility into account.

I'm more concerned with rules-fixing than rules lawyering.

REF

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
jhun...@meaddata.com (Hunter Johnson) wrote:

>In article <4gqu6i$i...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>>Being a melee weapon does not entail being able to deal damage.
>>>But playing Lucky Blow "adds one to the damage done" by a melee weapon
>>
>>*If* it does damage in the first place. Failing to mention damage doesn't mean
>>a weapon's strike has an assumed "0 damage" that you can build on; it means
>>that the strike simply can't deal damage.

>ROTFL! Failing to mention damage *means* that the card that *fails*
>to mention it *can't* deal damage.

>This has to be one of the funniest rulings ever. I'm hoping this is
>restricted to library cards, or my crypt is going need a drastic
>overhaul.

>Maybe cards that fail to mention Sudden Reversal can't be reversed.

>You know, closer to "reality", cards that fail to mention "aggravated"
>shouldn't be able to deal aggravated damage. Makes as much sense.

>Hunter


>-- /\
> J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj
> GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhun...@io.com for GURPS bib.
>& Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-e...@io.com
> "Exotic Dancer Barbie does not bump or grind by herself."

Actually I think this makes perfect sense and this discussion is more

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/26/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>Riposte breaks the rules.
>>I understand that cards breaks the rules, but neither Riposte nor your
>>answer have given it the rule-breaking ability it needs to deal its
>>damage successfully. It only breaks the rules by 1) giving a
>>non-inherent strike to a vampire. 2) Dealing damage (you say during a
>>strike resolution which will never come) that cannot be prevented.
>>
>>It only says the damage is not preventable. So you deal damage (which you
>>mistakingly say happens during combat) and it ends combat.
>>In so doing both of those, it prevents its own damage, as per the rules
>>on ending combat.

>My point is that it breaks the rules by dealing damage in spite of the
>fact that it is ending combat.

>>Either it does its damage during strike resolution and you add elaborate
>>text to simulate ending combat after strike resolution while undoing the
>>opposing minion's strike as errata to the card, or you let it (as simple
>>imspection implies) deal its damage after it ends combat.

>Or, I take option c), which is to continue to allow it to implicitly break
>the rules.

It implicitly breaks the rules by dealing damage after combat has ended.
This is alluded to by the "damage not preventable" text. But even without
such text, it is still apparent by the fact that the strike /ends combat/
(which cuts the strike resolution far short of any damage dealing).

Any other interpretation will require errata (as yet unstated errata).

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/27/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
> 4) Ammo cards are played before any strikes take effect regardless of
> whether those strikes deal damage or not. Thus, if a vampire who plays
> Dragon's Breath Rounds is slammed by Rotschreck, the combat will end before
> either strike does anything.

So now I can't use any ammo (notably Glaser Rounds) during additional strikes
(because some strikes have already taken effect)?

And I can't use any ammo cards during my non-First-Strike strike if the
opposing minion strikes with First Strike (because ammo cards must be played
when the strike they are modifying resolves, which would be after strikes
with First Strike resolve)?

All this mess just to avoid noting that strike resolution really
is broken into two sub-phases: apply strike, heal damage.

One simple little acknowledgement and all the errata/rulings on
Claws and Ammo become moot.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/28/96
to

Hunter Johnson <jhun...@meaddata.com> wrote:
>>a weapon's strike has an assumed "0 damage" that you can build on; it means
>>that the strike simply can't deal damage.
>ROTFL! Failing to mention damage *means* that the card that *fails*
>to mention it *can't* deal damage.

The rule is a rule about how strikes are written. If a strike doesn't
mention damage, then it can't deal damage.

>This has to be one of the funniest rulings ever. I'm hoping this is
>restricted to library cards, or my crypt is going need a drastic overhaul.

All vampires have an "strike: 1 hand" built into them by the rules. The
above ruling has nothing to do with this.

>You know, closer to "reality", cards that fail to mention "aggravated"
>shouldn't be able to deal aggravated damage. Makes as much sense.

You can always stack aggravated onto any strike that deals damage,
first strike onto any strike at all, and so on.

Rebecca Jackson

unread,
Feb 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/29/96
to
Allright -- how does this sound? Rowan ring :

Melee weapon

Paralyzes as a strike, etc.

Basically, the rowan Ring is a melee weapon kinda like the Stake that allows you to strike, as a melee weapon, for hand damage.
OR -- you can use it to strike : paralyze.

Look, it may be stretching it a little bit, but you've gotta admit that it makes SOME sense, and is consistant with the rulings.

Aaron Moshiashwili
am...@eunoukhos.dorm.rutgers.edu


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages