? to the Rulemongers

Hmm two part question... 1./ In the case of a vote that directly targets another player (say a disputed territory attempting to steal one of his hunting grounds) can the affected player attempt to block the vote, even he is not the predator or prey of the Meth. attempting the action?? 2./ a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? ( since the effect occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.) b) Can Pulled fangs affect a non-vampire minion using aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since non-vampire minions can't go to torpor....... Thanks, Karl

[ quoted text not captured ] > Thanks, Karl Ack, footnote question two should read... b) can Rotschreck affect................ Cheers, Karl

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Karl Innes wrote: > 1./ In the case of a vote that directly targets another player > (say a disputed territory attempting to steal one of his hunting > grounds) can the affected player attempt to block the vote, even he is > not the predator or prey of the Meth. attempting the action?? No, they cannot. The terms of a vote (Disputed Territory to steal someone's location, for example) are not announced until the action is unblocked. Thus, when there is an opportunity for them to block, there really isn't any "directing" going on, and once that happens, the vote is already unblocked. The actual effects of the vote are unimportant in determining directability. > 2./ a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire > using the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? ( since the > effect occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.) > b) Can Pulled fangs affect a non-vampire minion using > aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since > non-vampire minions can't go to torpor....... This is still being determined by WotC. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)> @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?

theCorrupter (adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Karl Innes wrote: Well, after finally finding the rulemonger's stuff, I found these two rulings: Rotschreck - Master Out-Of-Turn: Should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to inflict aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor. During the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of untapping the vampire." [RTR] Is played when strikes are chosen, not during resolution. [TOM 960521] : > 2./ a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire : > using the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? ( since the : > effect occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.) It has been ruled (Tom, from above) that Rotschreck can only be played during strike declaration, so no. However, LSJ is trying to determine why, and whether this will change in future. : > b) Can Rotschreck affect a non-vampire minion using : > aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since : > non-vampire minions can't go to torpor....... : : This is still being determined by WotC. Well, I don't know about this... see the RTR above. When the rules team ruled that Rotschreck was played against someone DEALING aggravated damage, they also ruled that the text should be fixed so that it is played only if a VAMPIRE makes aggravated damage. Don't know how this affects that one non-vamp. minion that can play cards as if they were a vampire (if at all). -spongy

jam...@dgii.com (James Puzzo) writes: >theCorrupter (adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: >: On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Karl Innes wrote: >Well, after finally finding the rulemonger's stuff, I found these two rulings: Sorry - the move took me by surprise, as well. If that's any consolation. >: > b) Can Rotschreck affect a non-vampire minion using >: > aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since >: > non-vampire minions can't go to torpor....... >: >: This is still being determined by WotC. >Well, I don't know about this... see the RTR above. When the rules >team ruled that Rotschreck was played against someone DEALING >aggravated damage, they also ruled that the text should be fixed so that >it is played only if a VAMPIRE makes aggravated damage. Subject: Design Team Rulings Date: November 1, 1994: 14) How does Rotschreck work with non-vampire minions? It doesn't. This card will only work if a vampire is attempting to do aggravated damage. --- I didn't include it in my list since Allies can ignore torpor effects as a general rule. (and are immune to the "place on vampire" effects as a general rule as well.) >Don't know how this affects that one non-vamp. minion that can play cards >as if they were a vampire (if at all). It won't affect them, either. Their "as vampire" status only affects their ability to play cards - it will not allow them to enter torpor nor otherwise subject them to vampire-only effects (like Burst of Sunlight) nor allow them to skirt their "ally" status (like blocking any of: a vampire in control of Sacre Cour, Stanislava, or a vampire with Eyes of the Serpent) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Cats teach us that not http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | everything in nature has Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | a function.

jam...@dgii.com (James Puzzo) wrote: >Well, after finally finding the rulemonger's stuff, I found these two rulings: >Rotschreck - Master Out-Of-Turn: > Should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to inflict > aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor. During > the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of > untapping the vampire." [RTR] > Is played when strikes are chosen, not during resolution. [TOM 960521] >: > 2./ a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire >: > using the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? ( since the >: > effect occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.) >It has been ruled (Tom, from above) that Rotschreck can only be played >during strike declaration, so no. However, LSJ is trying to determine >why, and whether this will change in future. I gotta ask... Am I reading something wrong here? In Vampire: The Gathering, the Rötschreck is a state into which a vampire enters under conditions of extreme duress, especially in the presence of (un)life- threatening agents such as fire, sun, etc. In this case, why would a Rötschreck card be played on the vampire *dealing* agg. dam.? It's certainly got me stuffed, since the original card text would seem to support this... «ägl»

Allan Lewis (a...@pnc.com.au) wrote: : : I gotta ask... Am I reading something wrong here? In Vampire: The : Gathering, the Roetschreck is a state into which a vampire enters under : conditions of extreme duress, especially in the presence of (un)life- : threatening agents such as fire, sun, etc. In this case, why would a : Roetschreck card be played on the vampire *dealing* agg. dam.? Ah -- the thing that you missed is that the WotC rules team has decided that we should ignore both the card text AND the game source and have ruled that Roetschreck may be played by a MINION against a VAMPIRE attempting to deal aggravated damage. Take it up with them -- won't get you anywhere. No one could get them to re-reverse the ruling (yes, it's true, the current ruling is actually a reversal of an initial clarification), and I don't think they will even care to hear about it anymore, because the card was dropped when Jyhad turned into V:TES. -spongy

> threatening agents such as fire, sun, etc. In this case, why would a > Rötschreck card be played on the vampire *dealing* agg. dam.? The only explanation I can see is that the acting vampire starts to use aggravated damage and then blows her courage roll- sort of an 'ohmigod, I'm using fire!' and drops the attack and goes into torpor. Pretty wimpy, and quite a stretch, but it does explain it. :^) Cheers, George

> I gotta ask... Am I reading something wrong here? In Vampire: The >Gathering, the R=F6tschreck is a state into which a vampire enters under >conditions of extreme duress, especially in the presence of (un)life- >threatening agents such as fire, sun, etc. In this case, why would a >R=F6tschreck card be played on the vampire *dealing* agg. dam.? > It's certainly got me stuffed, since the original card text would >seem to support this... Mis-named cards are legion. Since I'm not as fond of M:TG I enjoy lampooning it. How about the cards EARTHQUAKE and ARMAGEDON? The first destroys all creatures, the second all land. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? >chuckle< -j

a...@pnc.com.au (Allan Lewis) writes: > I gotta ask... Am I reading something wrong here? In Vampire: The >Gathering, the Rötschreck is a state into which a vampire enters under >conditions of extreme duress, especially in the presence of (un)life- >threatening agents such as fire, sun, etc. In this case, why would a >Rötschreck card be played on the vampire *dealing* agg. dam.? > It's certainly got me stuffed, since the original card text would >seem to support this... Rotschreck checks must be made in VtM if a vampire attempts to wield a flamethrower, or light a gas stove. True, the wording on Rotschreck (the VtES card) would lead to the interpretation that it affects the recipient of such damage (being afraid of the damage about to be dealt), but the current ruling isn't completely out of line with the WoD (although it should only be applied to flame, not to a vampire's own claws.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Only XT users know that http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Jan 1, 1980 was a Tuesday. [ quoted text not captured ]