Chantry-Leave Torpor at Stealth?
CurtAdams
>My group has always played it as an optional effect. But I believe the
>wording on the card supports a mandatory interpretation. What does
>everyone else think?
Mandatory. The card is phrased that way. It fits in with the extremely
close nature of the Tremere clan too.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Murphy Christopher J
just happen (like a Master effect)? Or is it an actual event with some
associated Stealth value (which could be blocked)?
I thought it was the former for 8 months until today.
Stephen Beaulieu
Christopher J) wrote:
And for 8 months you were correct. A Tremere leaves torpor during it's
Meth's master phase if that Meth own the Chantry. There is no stealth,
there is no chance of blocking. It is a master phase effect.
A question still arises as to whether it is required. For example, blood
must come off another Tremere or from the pool. If you have 3 pool left,
and your only 3 tremere are in torpor, and you have the Chantry, do you
_have_ to pay the 3 pool to bring your vamps out of torpor, thereby outing
yourself in the Master phase, or is bringing out a vamp optional?
My group has always played it as an optional effect. But I believe the
wording on the card supports a mandatory interpretation. What does
everyone else think?
stephen
Joseph Cochran
Murphy Christopher J <3cj...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>When a torpored Tremere "leaves torpor during your Master phase", does it
>just happen (like a Master effect)? Or is it an actual event with some
>associated Stealth value (which could be blocked)?
> I thought it was the former for 8 months until today.
It just happens. What made you change your mind to think that
it's an action?
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Patrick M. O'Malley
>And for 8 months you were correct. A Tremere leaves torpor during it's
>Meth's master phase if that Meth own the Chantry. There is no stealth,
>there is no chance of blocking. It is a master phase effect.
>A question still arises as to whether it is required. For example, blood
>must come off another Tremere or from the pool. If you have 3 pool left,
>and your only 3 tremere are in torpor, and you have the Chantry, do you
>_have_ to pay the 3 pool to bring your vamps out of torpor, thereby outing
>yourself in the Master phase, or is bringing out a vamp optional?
>My group has always played it as an optional effect. But I believe the
>wording on the card supports a mandatory interpretation. What does
>everyone else think?
My group considers the use of the Chantry mandatory. However, Chantry reads
"A Tremere leaves torpor during your master phase ... " I interpret that
to mean ONE tremere in torpor, not ALL tremeres in torpor.
Besides, if 3 of your vampires are in torpor and you have only 3 blood left
in your pool, you're in serious trouble anyway.
Pat
Intimate apperal
On 6 Apr 1995, Murphy Christopher J wrote:
> When a torpored Tremere "leaves torpor during your Master phase", does it
> just happen (like a Master effect)? Or is it an actual event with some
> associated Stealth value (which could be blocked)?
> I thought it was the former for 8 months until today.
>
>
My unofficial ruling would be that since it is not an action, it cannot
be blocked - it just happens. This is however, UNOFFICIAL( wouldn't want
to upset the elders, now would we ?)
-tony, Prince of Iowa City
CurtAdams
>> When a torpored Tremere "leaves torpor during your Master phase", does
it
>> just happen (like a Master effect)? Or is it an actual event with some
>> associated Stealth value (which could be blocked)?
>> I thought it was the former for 8 months until today.
>
>
>My unofficial ruling would be that since it is not an action, it cannot
>be blocked - it just happens. This is however, UNOFFICIAL( wouldn't want
>to upset the elders, now would we ?)
The so-called "net elders" can't issue official rules fixes, if you're
speaking of them. WotC "elders" can, but don't seem to care much what
anybody says.
In response to the question; you can only block actions. The Chantry
rescuing a vampire is not an action, even though an action exists for
similar effect.
-tony, Prince of Iowa City
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Joseph Cochran
Damian Chang <740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg> wrote:
>:> Mandatory. The card is phrased that way. It fits in with the extremely
>:> close nature of the Tremere clan too.
>
>You of course realize that this means the Talbot's Chainsaw's attack is also
>mandatory.
How? TC is equipment, Chantry is a master card. They don't
relate.
L. Scott Johnson
>In article <1995Apr1...@omega.ntu.ac.sg>,
>Damian Chang <740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg> wrote:
>>:> Mandatory. The card is phrased that way. It fits in with the extremely
>>:> close nature of the Tremere clan too.
>>
>>You of course realize that this means the Talbot's Chainsaw's attack is also
>>mandatory.
> How? TC is equipment, Chantry is a master card. They don't
>relate.
Because both say "Something happens"
If one means that it is mandatory, so does the other.
(I'm just clarifying the logic - I'm not taking any kind of position here).
Damian Chang
:> oma...@convex.com (Patrick M. O'Malley)
:>
:>>My group has always played it as an optional effect. But I believe the
:>>wording on the card supports a mandatory interpretation. What does
:>>everyone else think?
:> close nature of the Tremere clan too.
CurtAdams
>(CurtAdams) writes:
(Re: is the Chantry mandatory)
:> Mandatory. The card is phrased that way. It fits in with the
extremely
:> close nature of the Tremere clan too.
:> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
:You of course realize that this means the Talbot's Chainsaw's attack is
also
:mandatory.
Yes, and we play it that way. I am aware of the DTR rulings to the
contrary on both cards, but that's what the card says.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Joseph Cochran
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>:> Mandatory. The card is phrased that way. It fits in with the extremely
>>>:> close nature of the Tremere clan too.
>>>
>>>mandatory.
>
>>relate.
>
>Because both say "Something happens"
>If one means that it is mandatory, so does the other.
But both are completely different cards, defined completely
separately. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. You can't say
"because they're both round they both tase good." The characteristics
of a master card are completely different from those of a minion card,
and comparing a superficial characteristic of the cards is like making
the comparison above.
Finally, for whatever value you place on these things, in the
DTR for 12/22/94, question 17 was "Is using the Chantry optional?"
Answer: Yes. And we've all seen Tom's ruling that equipment is
optional.
It happens to match that both were ruled the same way, anyway.
Optional. But if they were different, I'd still stick to my guns...
Thomas R Wylie
Talbot's Chainsaw implicitly says that using it to attack is mandatory.
I can see the argument that Chantry also implicitly says that using it
is mandatory, so I will bring it up again, but I don't expect the answer
(that using it is optional) to change.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Joseph Cochran
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>Talbot's Chainsaw implicitly says that using it to attack is mandatory.
You mean that this is an exception to the "equipment is optional"
rule? Why?
gomi no sensei
Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3mgcvk$a...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>Talbot's Chainsaw implicitly says that using it to attack is mandatory.
> You mean that this is an exception to the "equipment is optional"
>rule? Why?
i might be going out on a limb here, but i'm guessing it might have
something to do with it saying so on the card.
heckler
golden rule, and all that
--
"A global village is NOT supposed to be an anarchic tyranny of the
discourteous!"
pers...@athena.mit.edu, vox clamans
L. Scott Johnson
Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3mgcvk$a...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Talbot's Chainsaw implicitly says that using it to attack is mandatory.
>
> You mean that this is an exception to the "equipment is optional"
>rule? Why?
He meant "explicitly" - Not that that improves his argument for equipment.