Tom: Multiple Card play Questions

8 views
Skip to first unread message

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/19/95
to

A familiar theme:

Can multiple X be played and are they cumulative?

X:
Betrayer (from the same Meth. on the same Meth. for the same Vamp)
Betrayer (from the same Meth. on the same Meth. for diff. Vamps)
Betrayer (from diff. Meth. on the same Meth. for the same Vamp)
Concealed weapon (to equip with 2 weapons).
Conquer the Beast (for two presses to continue each round).
Disguised Weapon (to equip with 2 weapons)
Fists of Death
Ghoul Retainer (and both use the same weapon)
Immortal Grapple (for two optional presses)
Infernal Pursuit (for drawing additional cards)
Kindred Society Games (on the same vampire)
Life Boon - on separate "oustings" (from the same Meth / from different Meth)
Masquerade Endangered - from diff. Meth. (how many to burn "instead" of untap?)
Patagia - Like Wings (for two Maneuvers per combat)
Trap (for two presses to continue each round).
XTC Laced Blood


Also, if I have a Ghoul Retainer and two Stakes, can I strike
with a stake and have the Ghoul strike with the other stake to
send the victim to torpor? Does he get both stakes?

--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/21/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>A familiar theme:
>Can multiple X be played and are they cumulative?

Whee! :)

>X:
>Betrayer (from the same Meth. on the same Meth. for the same Vamp)
>Betrayer (from the same Meth. on the same Meth. for diff. Vamps)
>Betrayer (from diff. Meth. on the same Meth. for the same Vamp)

Sure. A Methuselah targeted by more than one Betrayer would have to
pay 1 pool for each Betrayer in order to burn them, even if the same
vampire is the betrayer in each case.

>Concealed weapon (to equip with 2 weapons).

>Disguised Weapon (to equip with 2 weapons)

Sure, why not?

>Conquer the Beast (for two presses to continue each round).

>Fists of Death


>Trap (for two presses to continue each round).

Yes. Players may play any number of such cards at the beginning of each round.

>Ghoul Retainer (and both use the same weapon)

As written, this works, though I'm pretty sure the intention is that a given
weapon only be used by one minion/ally/retainer each round (see also the
rules on stealing equipment).

>Immortal Grapple (for two optional presses)

Yes, similar to the "start of round" cards above.

>Infernal Pursuit (for drawing additional cards)

Yes. So if you play two superior Pursuits, each time you replace a card,
you draw three cards and discard two of them.

>Kindred Society Games (on the same vampire)

Yes, though the vampire would have to burn 1 blood per KSG to untap,
not a flat fee of 1 blood.

>Life Boon - on separate "oustings" (from the same Meth / from different Meth)

Definitely.

>Masquerade Endangered - from diff. Meth.(how many to burn "instead" of untap?)

Multiple players could play the card, yes, but they would all be burned
during the vampire's next untap phase, so this wouldn't be very useful unless
someone wanted to cycle their hand.

>Patagia - Like Wings (for two Maneuvers per combat)

Yes.

>XTC Laced Blood

Multiple copies can be played on a vampire, and would have to be burned
individually, but the effect itself wouldn't stack.

>Also, if I have a Ghoul Retainer and two Stakes, can I strike
>with a stake and have the Ghoul strike with the other stake to
>send the victim to torpor? Does he get both stakes?

Both stakes will hit home at the same time, and if either one inflicts
more than one damage, the victim goes into torpor. In that case, all stakes
that dealt more than one damage (each) would be given to the victim.


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


Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/21/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
: >A familiar theme:
: >Can multiple X be played and are they cumulative?

: >Conquer the Beast (for two presses to continue each round).


: >Fists of Death
: >Trap (for two presses to continue each round).

: Yes. Players may play any number of such cards at the beginning of each round.

Just to be perfectly clear: 3 consecutive rounds without cards being
played would nullfy both traps?


: >Infernal Pursuit (for drawing additional cards)

: Yes. So if you play two superior Pursuits, each time you replace a card,
: you draw three cards and discard two of them.

^^^^^^^

Infernal Pursuit Combat Celerity
Normal: Press
Superior: For the remainder of the combat, each time you replace a card
draw an additional card. Then discard one card for each additional
card drawn.

Text on the card gives no indication that discarded cards must come from
the cards just drawn, and thus implicitly allows discarding from hand
_or_ new cards. Are you issuing errata to this card then?

Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant


Alan Kwan

unread,
Sep 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/21/95
to
In article <43s3pc$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>
>Whee! :)

Whea! :-)

>>Infernal Pursuit (for drawing additional cards)
>
>Yes. So if you play two superior Pursuits, each time you replace a card,
>you draw three cards and discard two of them.
^^ ^^^^

Are you sure, Tom? I don't put the 3 cards in my hand, then discard
2 cards from my hand?


--
"Live Life with Heart."

Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/21/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>Can multiple X be played and are they cumulative?

>>X:

>>Ghoul Retainer (and both use the same weapon)
>As written, this works, though I'm pretty sure the intention is that a given
>weapon only be used by one minion/ally/retainer each round (see also the
>rules on stealing equipment).

Well, as with the intention on not playing more than one Mulitple Strike
cards....

>>Kindred Society Games (on the same vampire)

>Yes, though the vampire would have to burn 1 blood per KSG to untap,
>not a flat fee of 1 blood.

Could he move both of them to a younger vampire (or younger vampires)
at once? Since it says "instead of untapping", I'd equate that to
the "instead of playing a Master card" on * Investment.

>>Life Boon - on separate "oustings" (from the same Meth / from different Meth)
>Definitely.

So who gets what Ante and whose Boon is (are) burned when the Boonee ousts
her Prey?

>>Masquerade Endangered - from diff. Meth.(how many to burn "instead" of untap?)

>Multiple players could play the card, yes, but they would all be burned
>during the vampire's next untap phase, so this wouldn't be very useful unless
>someone wanted to cycle their hand.

Again - Worded similarly to *Investment - how can you "instead of untap" to
pay both at once?

James C. Clover

unread,
Sep 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/23/95
to
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>>>Ghoul Retainer (and both use the same weapon)
>>As written, this works, though I'm pretty sure the intention is that a given
>>weapon only be used by one minion/ally/retainer each round (see also the
>>rules on stealing equipment).

>Well, as with the intention on not playing more than one Mulitple Strike
>cards....

Actually, restriction of one multiple strike card per round is more than
intention. It is, in fact, stated explicitly in the rule book (page 33
in the little rulebook).
--
Simeon
----------------------------
simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/23/95
to
Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote:

: : >Infernal Pursuit (for drawing additional cards)

: : Yes. So if you play two superior Pursuits, each time you replace a card,
: : you draw three cards and discard two of them.

: ^^^^^^^
: Text on the card gives no indication that discarded cards must come from

: the cards just drawn, and thus implicitly allows discarding from hand
: _or_ new cards. Are you issuing errata to this card then?

I accidentally hit the R)eply instead of the F)ollowup key the first time
I tried to post this article, with the result that Tom got a copy. He
answered me in private e-mail saying that this was indeed a D'oh! and he
just mis-read the card. Discard from anywhere.

(I deleted the reply before thinking to post it here... Tom, if you want
to confirm this I'd appreciate it.)

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/24/95
to

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: : >Infernal Pursuit (for drawing additional cards)
>: : Yes. So if you play two superior Pursuits, each time you replace a card,
>: : you draw three cards and discard two of them.
>: Text on the card gives no indication that discarded cards must come from
>: the cards just drawn, and thus implicitly allows discarding from hand
>: _or_ new cards. Are you issuing errata to this card then?
>I accidentally hit the R)eply instead of the F)ollowup key the first time
>I tried to post this article, with the result that Tom got a copy. He
>answered me in private e-mail saying that this was indeed a D'oh! and he
>just mis-read the card. Discard from anywhere.
>(I deleted the reply before thinking to post it here... Tom, if you want
>to confirm this I'd appreciate it.)

Confirmed. Sorry about that.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/24/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>Ghoul Retainer (and both use the same weapon)
>>As written, this works, though I'm pretty sure the intention is that a given
>>weapon only be used by one minion/ally/retainer each round (see also the
>>rules on stealing equipment).
>Well, as with the intention on not playing more than one Mulitple Strike
>cards....

The latter is a case of not wishing to override what is in the rulebook.
If the rulebook had been silent on the issue, we would have ruled as
intended. In the case of two Ghouls using the same weapon, the rulebook
is silent on whether you can or can't do it, so by default you can.
I'm not sure that it's worth adding a rule.

>>>Kindred Society Games (on the same vampire)
>>Yes, though the vampire would have to burn 1 blood per KSG to untap,
>>not a flat fee of 1 blood.
>Could he move both of them to a younger vampire (or younger vampires)
>at once? Since it says "instead of untapping", I'd equate that to
>the "instead of playing a Master card" on * Investment.

My reading is that you could move both Society Games away, since you are
not spending the vampire's untap in the same sense that you spend a master
phase action for an Investment blood, but I'll have to double check that.

>>>Life Boon - on separate "oustings" (from the same Meth/from different Meth)


>>Definitely.
>So who gets what Ante and whose Boon is (are) burned when the Boonee ousts
>her Prey?

It seems reasonable to say that if each time a player is saved by Life Boon,
that claims the next ante/victory point in line. Let's say that Nick,
Jeanette, and Lacroix start a three-player game. Nick saves Lacroix with
a Life Boon, marking Lacroix' first victory (and ante, if any) as belonging
to Nick. Later, Jeanette saves Lacroix with her own Life Boon, marking
Lacroix' second victory (and ante, if any) as belonging to her. And so on.
But that will have to be another double check.

>>>Masquerade Endangered -
>>>from diff. Meth.(how many to burn "instead" of untap?)
>>Multiple players could play the card, yes, but they would all be burned
>>during the vampire's next untap phase, so this wouldn't be very useful unless
>>someone wanted to cycle their hand.
>Again - Worded similarly to *Investment - how can you "instead of untap" to
>pay both at once?

Wording is similar, which is unfortunate, since this card is simply stopping
the vampire from untapping; you are not spending the vampire's untapping
to do anything, as you might be with KSG, for example :) It would be better
phrased as "don't untap the vampire, and burn ME instead".

Alan Kwan

unread,
Sep 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/24/95
to
In article <442bqg$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:

>>Well, as with the intention on not playing more than one Mulitple Strike
>>cards....

>The latter is a case of not wishing to override what is in the rulebook.
>If the rulebook had been silent on the issue, we would have ruled as
>intended.

Rulebook: "Hear, hear! YOU CAN PLAY ANY NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STRIKE
CARDS PER COMBAT ROUND!" (?)

(Sorry if I'm confusing newbies.)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages