Rules Team Rulings 12-JUL-1999

56 views
Skip to first unread message

LSJ

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to VTE...@oracle.wizards.com
Question: If I have Talbot's Chainsaw and the opposing
minion plays a Trap, does Talbot's Chainsaw's press
force me to press to end combat?
Answer: No. Talbot's Chainsaw's press is only usable to
continue combat (errata).

Question: What happens when a Progeny (or an Embrace or
a Creation Rite) is Banished?
Answer: It is placed in the uncontrolled region and
continues to be treated as a vampire of capacity 1
(plus any capacity from skill cards or other master
cards, of course), and it can be influenced as
normal.

Question: What happens if I Mind Rape a vampire and, on
my next turn (when I have control of that vampire), I
call and successfully pass a Banishment naming that
vampire? Is he placed in my uncontrolled region or
his previous controller's uncontrolled region?
Answer: The Banishment effect breaks the lingering
"control" effect of the (already burned) Mind Rape,
since such effects are not among the things that a
Banished vampire "remembers". So the banished vampire
is sent to his previous controller's uncontrolled
region (since the Mind Rape effect is no longer in
effect). (The answer is the same for Malkavian
Dementia's effect as well as Ayelea's effect).

Question: Does Soul Burn (like Blood Fury and Blood
Rage) nullify the *current* strike of the opposing
minion's weapon?
Answer: Yes. It functions similarly to Blood Fury and
Blood Rage (errata). Treat it as if it read:

Strike: 1R damage. This damage cannot be prevented
by cards that require Fortitude. If the opposing
vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this
round, he or she does no damage.
Superior: As above, but for 2R damage.

This errata is issued to match the original design
intent of the card, and to match similar existing
cards.

Question: Do you get the maneuver from Guard Dogs even
if you fail to block the action? (i.e., untap with
Guard Dogs, block with a different vampire, and then
use Fast Reaction)?
Answer: No. You only get the maneuver if you
successfully block the bleed (errata).

This errata is issued to match the original design
intent of the card, and to match similar existing
cards.

Question: What is the minimum capacity of a vampire?
Answer: One. No effect can result in a vampire having a
capacity of less than one (like Violet Tremain, Mind
of a Child, and Purity of the Beast, for example).

Question: Can I play Life Boon to save my predator and
give her all my pool, thereby ousting myself and
gaining 1 VP?
Answer: Yes. (And your predator would gain 6 pool for
the oust, in addition.)


--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Noal McDonald

unread,
Jul 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/16/99
to
Well...after a month of paid unemployment (gotta love beach time
clauses in consultant contracts) I'm back at work. Since I was
busy with other things during that month, I really haven't been
following my (many) newsgroups...and I see that LSJ has issued
some rulings.

Most of the things look like clarifications stated earlier or are
straight from card text, but there are a couple that are new...

> Question: Does Soul Burn (like Blood Fury and Blood
> Rage) nullify the *current* strike of the opposing
> minion's weapon?
> Answer: Yes. It functions similarly to Blood Fury and
> Blood Rage (errata).

I'm glad that this was ruled this way. Granted, I usually
favor no text changes, but consistency in games, like
gravy, is a good thing.

> Question: What is the minimum capacity of a vampire?
> Answer: One. No effect can result in a vampire having a
> capacity of less than one (like Violet Tremain, Mind
> of a Child, and Purity of the Beast, for example).

There were a couple of cards that stated that the capacity
could not go below zero. With the contradictions inherent
in a zero cap vampire, this is a decent change.

On a side note, any news about new cards or is it still all
guesswork?

Noal
--
"Sure, it's every American's right to post false or misleading
information on the Internet."
-The Detroit News

Robert Goudie

unread,
Jul 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/16/99
to
Noal McDonald wrote:
>
[clip]

> On a side note, any news about new cards or is it still all
> guesswork?

More information is available but hasn't been announced yet. An
official announcement is (hopefully) in our near future.

--
Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
_________________________________________________________________
The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization


Sorrow

unread,
Jul 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/16/99
to
> More information is available but hasn't been announced yet. An
> official announcement is (hopefully) in our near future.

GenCon maybe? When is that, btw?

Sorrow
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------


LSJ

unread,
Jul 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/16/99
to
Noal McDonald wrote:
> > Question: What is the minimum capacity of a vampire?
> > Answer: One. No effect can result in a vampire having a
> > capacity of less than one (like Violet Tremain, Mind
> > of a Child, and Purity of the Beast, for example).
>
> There were a couple of cards that stated that the capacity
> could not go below zero. With the contradictions inherent
> in a zero cap vampire, this is a decent change.

Like the Soul Burn errata, this ruling was also issued with an
eye toward consistency. The first capacity-reducing effect
(Wrath of the Inner Circle) stated (as a reminder, even) that
"a vampire's capacity cannot go below 1."

(In addition to the desire to avoid the strangeness that comes
with capacities of zero.)

--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

mbohlman

unread,
Jul 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/16/99
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:35:44 GMT "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
> > More information is available but hasn't been announced yet. An
> > official announcement is (hopefully) in our near future.

> GenCon maybe? When is that, btw?

3 weeks; first weekend in August.

Mike
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).


James Coupe

unread,
Jul 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/17/99
to
In article <378F6DC0...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com>
writes

>(In addition to the desire to avoid the strangeness that comes
>with capacities of zero.)

Was there anything stopping capacities becoming even less than zero?

--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)

Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

LSJ

unread,
Jul 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/19/99
to
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In article <378F6DC0...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com>
> writes
> >(In addition to the desire to avoid the strangeness that comes
> >with capacities of zero.)
>
> Was there anything stopping capacities becoming even less than zero?

Just card text. All capacity-reducing effects except one specified a
minimum capacity. And the one that didn't (Purity of the Beast [AH])
was an action, so could not reduce the acting vampire to less than
zero.

The other cards were:
Wrath of the Inner Circle [DS] (specified '1' as a general limit).
Mind of a Child [SAB] (specified '0' as the limit of its effect).
Violet Tremain [SAB] (specified '0' as the limit of her effect).

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/21/99
to
In article <37931334...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com>
writes
<Possibility of less than zero capacity>

>Just card text. All capacity-reducing effects except one specified a
>minimum capacity. And the one that didn't (Purity of the Beast [AH])
>was an action, so could not reduce the acting vampire to less than
>zero.

Just checking the card texts file, and it (well, both versions) says 1
pool. I'm assuming that's 1 blood.

I have a vampire out with the following on them:

Superior Protean
Ankara Citadel, Turkey

However, due to a severe battering, they are only at 1 capacity and 1
blood. I play Purity of the Beast, directing it at my prey's War Ghoul.
Now, I get blocked by Violet Tremain (6/6), who has previously put a
Fleshcraft on me, negating the stealth provided by the Purity of the
Beast.

So, we get into combat. First round, Violet and I exchange blows. I
play Taste of Vitae, regaining the one blood I lost to her hand damage.
I am on 1/1, she is on 5/6. I press, using Form of the Ghost. Second
round, she hits me, I hit her. I play Taste of Vitae. I'm on 1/1,
she's on 4/6. I press with Gleam of Red Eyes. Third round, my strike
is Form of Mist. Combat ends. Violet's ability kicks in and I lose a
capacity. Since I am at 0 blood, I would have to hunt normally (I'm not
sure if this is possible mid-action, but I bring it up merely to negate
it). However, the text on Form of Mist says, if I have the most up to
date version:

"Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire,
this vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action
modifier) and the action continues as if unblocked."

The point about an untapped vampire having to hunt if at 0 blood, as I
am, clearly cannot come into play since the Golden Rule of Cards
requires Form of Mist to take over and force me to continue the Purity
of the Beast action. I have no option over that.

So, I hit the War Ghoul. At 0 capacity. However, I'm not entirely sure
whether the Purity of the Beast action has now resolved or not. If it
has, I should be at -1 capacity. (I can afford it, because the Citadel
"pays" it for me.) If it hasn't, yet, and requires the combat to go
through, I'll just throw down an Earth Meld for ease. I should still be
at -1 capacity.

Would that be possible, under the old rules? And can I claim "Stupid
Interaction of Cards of the Month"?

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/21/99
to
In article <LkhJ0IAE...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe
<ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes

>Since I am at 0 blood, I would have to hunt normally (I'm not
>sure if this is possible mid-action, but I bring it up merely to negate
>it).

Thinking about it, no, it shouldn't, since I am tapped.

LSJ

unread,
Jul 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/22/99
to
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In article <37931334...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com>
> writes
> <Possibility of less than zero capacity>
> >Just card text. All capacity-reducing effects except one specified a
> >minimum capacity. And the one that didn't (Purity of the Beast [AH])
> >was an action, so could not reduce the acting vampire to less than
> >zero.
>
> Just checking the card texts file, and it (well, both versions) says 1
> pool. I'm assuming that's 1 blood.

Hmm. OK. I was mainly thinking about the fact that a zero-cap couldn't
initiate the action, since he'd be empty and empty vampires cannot do
anything except "hunt". I'll check on that blood/pool thing, though.

> I have a [1-cap vamp attempts Purity of the Beast, blocked by
> Violet who reduces his capacity to zero while he continues the action
> with Form of Mist, so winds up at -1 capacity.]

> Would that be possible, under the old rules? And can I claim "Stupid
> Interaction of Cards of the Month"?

Yeah :-).

Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is
increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that
vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet,
Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the
skill cards get ousted.

(With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1 capacity).

carl.pi...@philips.com

unread,
Jul 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/22/99
to
In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:

> Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is
> increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that
> vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet,
> Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the
> skill cards get ousted.

Hum? I thought it has been ruled that cards in play not under control
of a Methuselah (but owned by him) are not burned when this Meth leaves
the game. Am I wrong? It seems stupid and without reason why cards
owned, but not controlled would be taken away. It disrupts the game.

Btw, I don't know if a skill card played on a vamp controlled by
another Methuselah, is then controlled by the controller of the vamp,
but it seems logical and consequent. The vamp uses the skill, so you
could as well assume the vamp "owns" the skill card. Otherwis the
situation would be very awkward. ("I control the Protean card on your
Lupo, but no problem, Lupo may make use of the Protean card.")

>
> (With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1
capacity).

It's good that a vamp cannot go below one. On the other hand, in the
RPG there are weak vamps (14th,15th gen.), so why not allow 0 cap.
vamps that always must hunt but gain no blood? :)

Carl

LSJ

unread,
Jul 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/22/99
to
carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>
> > Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is
> > increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that
> > vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet,
> > Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the
> > skill cards get ousted.
>
> Hum? I thought it has been ruled that cards in play not under control
> of a Methuselah (but owned by him) are not burned when this Meth leaves
> the game. Am I wrong? It seems stupid and without reason why cards
> owned, but not controlled would be taken away. It disrupts the game.

You are right. Note that I said the "Meth who *controls* the skill card"
(emphasis added). Skill cards, like all master cards, are controlled
by the Methuselah who played them.

> Btw, I don't know if a skill card played on a vamp controlled by
> another Methuselah, is then controlled by the controller of the vamp,
> but it seems logical and consequent. The vamp uses the skill, so you

It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone
else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played them.

> could as well assume the vamp "owns" the skill card. Otherwis the
> situation would be very awkward. ("I control the Protean card on your
> Lupo, but no problem, Lupo may make use of the Protean card.")

It is not awkward. You control the skill card. The skill card gives
a discipline (and an extra capacity) to the vampire it is on.

Similarly, if you play Haven Unconvered on a vampire, you control the
Haven even though the vampire affected by the Haven is not (typically)
one that you control.

The specific example of a discipline card on a vampire which doesn't
have the same controller as the discipline card was first addressed in
RTR 17-OCT-1995.

> > (With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1
> capacity).
>
> It's good that a vamp cannot go below one. On the other hand, in the
> RPG there are weak vamps (14th,15th gen.), so why not allow 0 cap.
> vamps that always must hunt but gain no blood? :)

It was ruled that '1' was the better minimum. Especially since it matched
the earliest minimum (and the only generic minimum) in print (Wrath of
the Inner Circle).

carl.pi...@philips.com

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
In article <379738A5...@wizards.com>,

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
> > In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ
<vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> >

(snipped)

>
> It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone
> else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played
them.

Then I don't understand it again. In your example the controller of the
skill card is ousted, and takes the skill cards with him. Otherwise the
example would make no sense. Now, the golden Rules of card-ownership (I
hope I don't make a mistake here) say that cards "acquired" by another
Meth during the game stay with him for the rest of the game and are
returned later.
Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment,
locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if
I get it right, would you?
IMO the skill cards should stay in play if played on a minion not
controlled! Same goes for Blood Doll.

Richard Zopf

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to

carl.pi...@philips.com wrote in message <7n91eq$f0r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>In article <379738A5...@wizards.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>> carl.pi...@philips.com wrote:
>> > In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ
><vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>(snipped)
>
>>
>> It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone
>> else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played
>them.
>
>Then I don't understand it again. In your example the controller of the
>skill card is ousted, and takes the skill cards with him. Otherwise the
>example would make no sense. Now, the golden Rules of card-ownership (I
>hope I don't make a mistake here) say that cards "acquired" by another
>Meth during the game stay with him for the rest of the game and are
>returned later.
>Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment,
>locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if
>I get it right, would you?
Why do you feel the vampire should keep a gift vested to him by another
Methuselah? For whatever insane mechanism made that Meth feel it would work
to his benefit, s/he gave an opponents lackey a bit of something extra,
obviously with the intent of having be to his own foul benefit. When a Meth
leaves the Jyhad, it makes absolute sense that such vestitures should be
taken, as well.

Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

LSJ

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
> > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > > > [when the controller of a skill card is ousted, the skill card
> > > > is burned.]
> > > [to have it remain in play would be logical.]

> > It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone
> > else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played
> > them.
>
> Then I don't understand it again. In your example the controller of the
> skill card is ousted, and takes the skill cards with him. Otherwise the

All cards controlled by the ousted player are burned.
Including any skill cards she controls.
Including skill cards she controls that are "on" vampires that she doesn't
control.

> example would make no sense. Now, the golden Rules of card-ownership (I
> hope I don't make a mistake here) say that cards "acquired" by another
> Meth during the game stay with him for the rest of the game and are
> returned later.

Yes. But you don't "acquire" a skill card that someone else plays on
your vamp (any more that you "acquire" a Haven Uncovered played on one
of your vamps). It is simply a card on your vamp. You don't control the
card.

If you actually steal/trade for control of the skill card (via Succubus
Club, Ethan Locke, etc.), then you would have control of the card and it
would not be burned when its owner (who is not the controller) is
ousted. It would be returned to the owner when it was burned or when the
game ends [Golden Rule of Card Ownership].

Master cards are controlled by the Methusleh who played them.
Minion cards are controlled by the controller of the minion they are on
(or, if they are not "on" a minion, they are controlled by the Meth. who
played them).

> Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment,
> locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if
> I get it right, would you?

No inconsistency.

You keep cards that you control. You "lose" cards that are controlled
by an ousted Meth. (Technically, "you" don't lose them, since they would
have to have been yours before you could lose them.)

> IMO the skill cards should stay in play if played on a minion not
> controlled! Same goes for Blood Doll.

IMO, those Master cards are handled correctly now.

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
In article <7n91eq$f0r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, carl.pi...@philips.com
writes

>Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment,
>locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if
>I get it right, would you?

The Control has never been transferred by card text. The player of a
master card controls it until such time as control is transferred, by
explicit card text.

LSJ

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
LSJ wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > [Re: Purity of the Beast]

> > Just checking the card texts file, and it (well, both versions) says 1
> > pool. I'm assuming that's 1 blood.
> [...snip...]

> I'll check on that blood/pool thing, though.

The card as printed costs 1 blood. The spoiler list is in error.

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/23/99
to
In article <37986D29...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com>
writes

>The card as printed costs 1 blood. The spoiler list is in error.

True. Neither of the AH spoiler lists I have, both from WotC, believe
that Ankara Citadel exists, for instance.

Matt

unread,
Jul 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/26/99
to

James Coupe wrote:

> True. Neither of the AH spoiler lists I have, both from WotC, believe
> that Ankara Citadel exists, for instance.
>

//Waaaaaay off topic//The WotC 'God Book' of AH cards i used to use at
WotC UK had a picture of 'Vial of Methuselath blood' in it. There is at
least one piece of artwork available for any new cards.

//Back to your normal thread//

matt

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages