Effects of the Rules Team Rulings (May) & Lots of ?'s

Hmm...the latest Rules Team Rulings have been rather significant. In some cases, it has severely powered up or hamstrung several cards. So here are my thoughts: First off, Psyche! has already been a very powerful card, but I think the latest rulings completely give it a power-boost it doesn't already need. Psyche! (which is a fairly common card) can now get around Rotschreck and Illusions of the Kindred. And even the damage from Catatonic Fear! In addition, I still don't understand exactly how Psyche! is suppoed to "interrupt" Rotschreck and Illusions of the Kindred. With VTES, when a card is played, it resolves (with certain exceptions like actions and strikes). It seems to silly to have a step-by-step evaluation of each of the possible effects and allow times to interrupt them and all. I mean it's not like this is "That Other Game" with all those interrupts or whatever (or did they change them all to instants?). In any case, I think Psyche! is a tad bit too powerful now. Maybe we should make it cost a blood!!!!!!!!! In addition, there's the whole ickiness of allies who could use discipline cards. I think it's all due to those damned Herald of Topheth, whose access to Presence (Charming Lobby) really dropped the ball on everything. The way it stands, Talaq and especially the Rafastio Ghoul are severely hampered since Burst of Sunlight screws them over (which doesn't make any sense). From my previous posts, it's fairly clear that I'm not one of those canon-RPG fanatics and I understand that "this is just a game, it's not always logical," but the whole thing about the Ghoul going to unreturnable torpor (or as some suggest being burned) from its own Burst of Sunlight is simply confounding and InSanELy counter-intuitive. This "treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the appropriate cards" is really baffling. So: #1. Say a Rafastio Ghoul plays a Theft of Vitae (and is treated as a vampire for all parts of strike resolution). Doesn't that mean that if the opposing vampire does agg damage (a Gangrel poke), the Ghoul goes to torpor? So a Rock Cat striking with an Undead Strength (and "treated as a vampire for all parts of the resolution of the play") would go to torpor from a Gangrel poke? Or is the strike resolution phase divided into two parts (your part and my part) and the ally is treated as vampire for my part but not for your part? #2. Ah! Does this mean that there's finally a way for allies to get loquipment (besides Disputed Territory and Succubus Club). Since the Rafastio Ghoul and Talaq are now treated as vampires during resolution, can they use Magic of the Smith to equip with a Palatial Estate or Catacombs (not that they'd use it much though)? As a vampire, they just pay the cost with their blood/life? #3. I'm still a bit confused about "treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the appropriate cards." Especially with the concept of interrupting which apparently now exists. An ally plays a discipline card and is "treated as a vampire." During this time, can an ally use an effect that normally requries a vampire, sort of "piggy-backing" on his vampire status? For example, since an ally is treated as a vampire during action resolution (when he/she pays the cost), does that mean a Hearld of Topeth with the Ankara Citadel wouldn't have to pay anything for a Legal Manipulations? He *us* treated as a vampire during resolution, so wouldn't Ankara text apply to him? Similarly, say a Herald has a Living Manse. If he bleeds with a Social Charm, he's "treated as a vampire" so would the bleed bonus for the Living Manse kick in? #4. I'm a little confused about how the ally cannot benefit from "continuing effects." Say a hypothetical ally can play Shadow Feint. Then he/she gains First Strike for the round, right? But if an ally plays Blood Agony (which seems to set up an effect for later, after resolution), he/she wouldn't benefit from the First Strike? #5. Another confusing thing is this whole "treated as a vampire" vs. being an ally the whole time (lots of people are confused, thinking that it goes from being an ally and then turning back into a vampire). You stated "The ally is always an ally" and that the Herald can call a vote. But Allies cannot call referendums. [6.1.7] Even if the Herald can play Charming Lobby and is treated as an vampire, he is still an ally and thus 6.1.7 would prohibit him from calling a referendum. (Sort of like how Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge and a hypothetical card like Doggy Pack that prohibits "dodges" would thus prohibit Stutter-Step despite it also being a hand strike). #6. Assuming that the Herald can call a Charming Lobby. Just in general, can allies vote? (though of course there's really not much that lets them, especially since Alamut was changed). And can the Herald play a Bewitching Oration to gain votes and then vote with them? * Okay, some of the questions get a bit off-topic at this point * #7. Slight aside. Can the Herald of Topeth play Iron Heart (which requires basic potence and basic presence)? Just wanted to make sure. #8. Can Akhenaten and Kherebutu use Shroud Mastery to give stealth to an acting wraith? #9. Is it just me or is it a bit confusing how some stealth effects are carried over after a Mask while others (those that apply to a certain minion) aren't? For example, if Vampire A plays a Lost in Crowds, the LiC stealth carries over. But if Vampire A takes an action and is Cloaked by some other vampires and then a different vampire takes over the action, the Cloaked stealth doesn't carry over. It's just a bit icky IMO. #10. Completely off-topic but I've been wondering for a while. If Vampire B already has a Scorpion's Touch on him and is in combat with Vampire A, can Vampire A strike with another Scorpion's Touch? #11. Living Manse states that "He or she can burn this card before range is chosen to end combat." Do you have to be a vampire to use this effect? Say a Hell Hound has a Living Manse (don't ask him how he got it). Can he burn the Manse to end combat? Also, since "A vampire may have only one Living Manse" and an ally isn't a vampire, does this mean a Hell Hound can have 6 Living Manses? Now say it's a Herald of Topeth who has 6 Living Manses. Normally it's fine since he's an ally. But if he plays a discipline card and is "treated as a vampire," would this trigger the Living Manse text and he'd lose 5 of them? (Sort of related to #3). #12. So would a Herald with a Laptop and Tasha Morgan (base bleed of 3) burn himself with a Justicar Retribution (since he's treated as a vampire)? #13. Also, wouldn't it be a bit weird if a Herald was equipped with a Writ of Acceptance? As long as he's "treated as a vampire" (BTW: are allies sectless vampires during this time?), he's effectively a Camarilla vampire? Also, is it hypothetically possible for an ally to gain a title? Okay, that's it for now. Sorry for all of the questions LSJ! =P Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020501194615...@mb-fp.aol.com... > Hmm...the latest Rules Team Rulings have been rather significant. In some > cases, it has severely powered up or hamstrung several cards. So here are my > thoughts: > > > First off, Psyche! has already been a very powerful card, but I think the > latest rulings completely give it a power-boost it doesn't already need. > Psyche! (which is a fairly common card) can now get around Rotschreck and > Illusions of the Kindred. And even the damage from Catatonic Fear! In addition, > I still don't understand exactly how Psyche! is suppoed to "interrupt" > Rotschreck and Illusions of the Kindred. With VTES, when a card is played, it > resolves (with certain exceptions like actions and strikes). It seems to silly > to have a step-by-step evaluation of each of the possible effects and allow > times to interrupt them and all. I mean it's not like this is "That Other Game" > with all those interrupts or whatever (or did they change them all to > instants?). In any case, I think Psyche! is a tad bit too powerful now. Maybe > we should make it cost a blood!!!!!!!!! I have also found that ruling to be slightly OTT. Rotshcreck sends the vampire into torpor when (or just after it is played) and ends combat. Psyche could be played after combat has finished but I thought that the Schrecked vamp would be unable to play it due to it being in torpor and thus not ready, which is a requirement of Psyche. I have to agree that I'm not entirely sure how psyche could interpupt Rotschreck either. Would that be after the effect of the card or half-way through reading the card? =) John [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020501194615...@mb-fp.aol.com... > Hmm...the latest Rules Team Rulings have been rather significant. In some > cases, it has severely powered up or hamstrung several cards. So here are my > thoughts: > > > First off, Psyche! has already been a very powerful card, but I think the > latest rulings completely give it a power-boost it doesn't already need. > Psyche! (which is a fairly common card) can now get around Rotschreck and > Illusions of the Kindred. And even the damage from Catatonic Fear! In addition, > I still don't understand exactly how Psyche! is suppoed to "interrupt" > Rotschreck and Illusions of the Kindred. With VTES, when a card is played, it > resolves (with certain exceptions like actions and strikes). It seems to silly > to have a step-by-step evaluation of each of the possible effects and allow > times to interrupt them and all. I mean it's not like this is "That Other Game" > with all those interrupts or whatever (or did they change them all to > instants?). In any case, I think Psyche! is a tad bit too powerful now. Maybe > we should make it cost a blood!!!!!!!!! I'm not overly fussed about the power boost cards like Psyche! recieve but I don't like this interrupting business. Surely we can have a ruling that avoids potential problems and still keeps the "atomic-ness" of card resolution. > In addition, there's the whole ickiness of allies who could use discipline > cards. I think it's all due to those damned Herald of Topheth, whose access to > Presence (Charming Lobby) really dropped the ball on everything. The way it > stands, Talaq and especially the Rafastio Ghoul are severely hampered since > Burst of Sunlight screws them over (which doesn't make any sense). From my > previous posts, it's fairly clear that I'm not one of those canon-RPG fanatics > and I understand that "this is just a game, it's not always logical," but the > whole thing about the Ghoul going to unreturnable torpor (or as some suggest > being burned) from its own Burst of Sunlight is simply confounding and InSanELy > counter-intuitive. This "treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of > the play of the appropriate cards" is really baffling. So: I don't like this one either, not just from a RPG point of view but simply because it partially negates the whole point of using allies, which is that they treat agg damage as normal. [snip questions]

"bingotclown" <sin...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:c_%z8.1819$rO2.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > I have also found that ruling to be slightly OTT. Rotshcreck sends the > vampire into torpor when (or just after it is played) and ends combat. > Psyche could be played after combat has finished but I thought that the > Schrecked vamp would be unable to play it due to it being in torpor and thus > not ready, which is a requirement of Psyche. I have to agree that I'm not > entirely sure how psyche could interpupt Rotschreck either. Would that be > after the effect of the card or half-way through reading the card? =) > I have to agree with this. The vampire would not be ready after combat and so would be unable to play Psyche. Surely LSJ is not introducing interrupt effects to our fair game, is he?

Halcyan 2 wrote: > #1. Say a Rafastio Ghoul plays a Theft of Vitae (and is treated as a vampire > for all parts of strike resolution). He is not "treated as a vampire for all parts of strike resolution". Theft of Vitae works as if he were a vampire. That is all. > #2. Ah! Does this mean that there's finally a way for allies to get loquipment > (besides Disputed Territory and Succubus Club). Since the Rafastio Ghoul and > Talaq are now treated as vampires during resolution, can they use Magic of the > Smith to equip with a Palatial Estate or Catacombs (not that they'd use it much > though)? As a vampire, they just pay the cost with their blood/life? Sure. > #3. I'm still a bit confused about "treated as vampires for all parts of the > resolution of the play of the appropriate cards." Especially with the concept > of interrupting which apparently now exists. An ally plays a discipline card > and is "treated as a vampire." During this time, can an ally use an effect that > normally requries a vampire, sort of "piggy-backing" on his vampire status? For No. > example, since an ally is treated as a vampire during action resolution (when > he/she pays the cost), does that mean a Hearld of Topeth with the Ankara He is treated as a vampire for the purposes of the card he is playing as a vampire. That is all. > Citadel wouldn't have to pay anything for a Legal Manipulations? He *us* No. > treated as a vampire during resolution, so wouldn't Ankara text apply to him? > Similarly, say a Herald has a Living Manse. If he bleeds with a Social Charm, > he's "treated as a vampire" so would the bleed bonus for the Living Manse kick > in? No. (How did the Herald get a Living Manse?) > #4. I'm a little confused about how the ally cannot benefit from "continuing > effects." Say a hypothetical ally can play Shadow Feint. Then he/she gains > First Strike for the round, right? But if an ally plays Blood Agony (which > seems to set up an effect for later, after resolution), he/she wouldn't benefit > from the First Strike? Effects for later *generated by the play of the card* are fine. Continuing effects from the *card in play* are the other case. > #5. Another confusing thing is this whole "treated as a vampire" vs. being an > ally the whole time (lots of people are confused, thinking that it goes from > being an ally and then turning back into a vampire). You stated "The ally is > always an ally" and that the Herald can call a vote. But Allies cannot call > referendums. [6.1.7] Even if the Herald can play Charming Lobby and is treated > as an vampire, he is still an ally and thus 6.1.7 would prohibit him from > calling a referendum. (Sort of like how Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and > a dodge and a hypothetical card like Doggy Pack that prohibits "dodges" would > thus prohibit Stutter-Step despite it also being a hand strike). No. Like Wake circumvents Sleeping Mind. The vampire is still (continuously) in a tapped state. But he can block "as if untapped". The Herald is (continously) an ally, but can play Charming Lobby (call a referendum) "as [if] a vampire". > #6. Assuming that the Herald can call a Charming Lobby. Just in general, can > allies vote? (though of course there's really not much that lets them, > especially since Alamut was changed). And can the Herald play a Bewitching > Oration to gain votes and then vote with them? Sure. > * Okay, some of the questions get a bit off-topic at this point * > > #7. Slight aside. Can the Herald of Topeth play Iron Heart (which requires > basic potence and basic presence)? Just wanted to make sure. Yes. Card text: "and/or". > #8. Can Akhenaten and Kherebutu use Shroud Mastery to give stealth to an acting > wraith? Yes (card text). > #9. Is it just me or is it a bit confusing how some stealth effects are carried > over after a Mask while others (those that apply to a certain minion) aren't? > For example, if Vampire A plays a Lost in Crowds, the LiC stealth carries over. > But if Vampire A takes an action and is Cloaked by some other vampires and then > a different vampire takes over the action, the Cloaked stealth doesn't carry > over. It's just a bit icky IMO. Most stealth is applied to the action. Some stealth is explicitly applied to the minion by card text. > #10. Completely off-topic but I've been wondering for a while. If Vampire B > already has a Scorpion's Touch on him and is in combat with Vampire A, can > Vampire A strike with another Scorpion's Touch? No. > #11. Living Manse states that "He or she can burn this card before range is > chosen to end combat." Do you have to be a vampire to use this effect? Say a > Hell Hound has a Living Manse (don't ask him how he got it). Can he burn the > Manse to end combat? Also, since "A vampire may have only one Living Manse" and No. The antecedent is "The vampire with this card". > an ally isn't a vampire, does this mean a Hell Hound can have 6 Living Manses? If there were any way to give him any at all, sure. > Now say it's a Herald of Topeth who has 6 Living Manses. Normally it's fine > since he's an ally. But if he plays a discipline card and is "treated as a > vampire," would this trigger the Living Manse text and he'd lose 5 of them? > (Sort of related to #3). No, per above. > #12. So would a Herald with a Laptop and Tasha Morgan (base bleed of 3) burn > himself with a Justicar Retribution (since he's treated as a vampire)? If the Herald called Justicar Retribution with Charming Lobby and the referendum passed, yes. > #13. Also, wouldn't it be a bit weird if a Herald was equipped with a Writ of > Acceptance? As long as he's "treated as a vampire" (BTW: are allies sectless > vampires during this time?), he's effectively a Camarilla vampire? Also, is it > hypothetically possible for an ally to gain a title? No. The Writ doesn't treat him as a vampire. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD12D43...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > #7. Slight aside. Can the Herald of Topeth play Iron Heart (which requires > > basic potence and basic presence)? Just wanted to make sure. > > Yes. Card text: "and/or". Actually, come to think of it, shouldn't Rock Cat also be able to play Iron Heart? Rock Cat's text: "Rock Cat may play cards requiring basic Potence [pot] as a vampire of capacity 3." Multi-discipline cards "require" each of the disciplines printed on the card. Rock Cat doesn't play cards "as a vampire with Potence" which is why Talaq doesn't benefit from Tremere Convocation, right? Rock Cat just has the ability to play cards - any cards - that require basic Potence. Since Iron Heart (at pot pre) requires basic Potence, Rock Cat should be able to play it. I expect this won't be able to stand, though. :-) New ruling? Josh stupid allies anyway

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Actually, come to think of it, shouldn't Rock Cat also be > able to play Iron Heart? > > Rock Cat's text: "Rock Cat may play cards requiring basic > Potence [pot] as a vampire of capacity 3." > > Multi-discipline cards "require" each of the disciplines > printed on the card. Rock Cat doesn't play cards "as a > vampire with Potence" which is why Talaq doesn't benefit from > Tremere Convocation, right? Rock Cat just has the ability to > play cards - any cards - that require basic Potence. Since > Iron Heart (at pot pre) requires basic Potence, Rock Cat > should be able to play it. > > I expect this won't be able to stand, though. :-) New > ruling? Iron Heart requires Potence => Rock Cat may play it as a vampire of capacity 3. A vampire of capacity 3 cannot play Iron Heart unless he has Presence => Rock Cat cannot play Iron Heart. This would extend to any Potence-requiring card, since Rock Cat doesn't have Potence, either, but the grant of "as if Potence" is implied, of course. The grant of Presence is not implied (and is not given, as well). Rock Cat may play a card that requires Potence as if he were a vampire who has basic Potence of capacity 3. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD14FD8...@white-wolf.com... > Iron Heart requires Potence => Rock Cat may play it as a vampire > of capacity 3. A vampire of capacity 3 cannot play Iron Heart > unless he has Presence => Rock Cat cannot play Iron Heart. > > This would extend to any Potence-requiring card, since Rock Cat > doesn't have Potence, either, but the grant of "as if Potence" > is implied, of course. But if "as if Potence" is implied, then Talaq the Immortal should be able to benefit from Tremere Convocation: may play Theft of Vitae as a vampire of capacity 3; a vampire of capacity 3 can't play Theft of Vitae unless he has Thaumaturgy; a vampire with Thaumaturgy may play Thaumaturgy combat cards at the superior level. How is this not parallel? Josh stupid allies anyway

[ quoted text not captured ] He isn't being treated as a Vampire by the location in play. He is only treated as a vampire by the cards he plays as a vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD15427...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > But if "as if Potence" is implied, then Talaq the Immortal > > should be able to benefit from Tremere Convocation: may play > > Theft of Vitae as a vampire of capacity 3; a vampire of > > capacity 3 can't play Theft of Vitae unless he has Thaumaturgy; > > a vampire with Thaumaturgy may play Thaumaturgy combat cards > > at the superior level. How is this not parallel? > > He isn't being treated as a Vampire by the location in play. > He is only treated as a vampire by the cards he plays as a vampire. How does that jibe with Herald of Topheth calling a vote with Charming Lobby? Wouldn't Herald be "only treated as a vampire" by the card he plays as a vampire - Charming Lobby - and not the referendum card Charming Lobby tells him to play? ("Call a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand (play that card) [...]") He can play Charming Lobby as a vampire, but the political action card is not being played by Charming Lobby but by the acting minion as a result of Charming Lobby. The allys-playing-vampire-cards ruling says: "For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the appropriate cards." It doesn't say "treated as vampires by the cards they are playing as vampires [for all parts...] but not by other cards that would affect them". That's what it should say, you're saying? Josh stupid allies anyway

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > He isn't being treated as a Vampire by the location in play. > > He is only treated as a vampire by the cards he plays as a vampire. > > How does that jibe with Herald of Topheth calling a vote with > Charming Lobby? Wouldn't Herald be "only treated as a vampire" > by the card he plays as a vampire - Charming Lobby - and not the > referendum card Charming Lobby tells him to play? ("Call a > referendum listed on a political action card in your hand (play > that card) [...]") He can play Charming Lobby as a vampire, but > the political action card is not being played by Charming Lobby > but by the acting minion as a result of Charming Lobby. No. He plays Chamrming Lobby as a vampire. The effects of Charming Lobby (successful action) are applied to him as if he were a vampire, so he "calls a referendum" "as a vampire". > The allys-playing-vampire-cards ruling says: > > "For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", > they are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of > the play of the appropriate cards." > > It doesn't say "treated as vampires by the cards they are > playing as vampires [for all parts...] but not by other cards > that would affect them". That's what it should say, you're > saying? That's what it means, yeah. It accomplishes that, but could've been worded in the more ironclad phrasing you suggest, sure, except for the "but not by..." part. It doesn't have to say that the ally is not treated as a vampire for other effects - that's true anyhow. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD159D1...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > How does that jibe with Herald of Topheth calling a vote with > > Charming Lobby? Wouldn't Herald be "only treated as a vampire" > > by the card he plays as a vampire - Charming Lobby - and not the > > referendum card Charming Lobby tells him to play? ("Call a > > referendum listed on a political action card in your hand (play > > that card) [...]") He can play Charming Lobby as a vampire, but > > the political action card is not being played by Charming Lobby > > but by the acting minion as a result of Charming Lobby. > > No. He plays Chamrming Lobby as a vampire. The effects of Charming > Lobby (successful action) are applied to him as if he were a vampire, > so he "calls a referendum" "as a vampire". The effect of Charming Lobby is that the Lobbyist *plays* a political action card, by card text. How can Herald of Topheth play that second card "as a vampire" when it is not itself the card his ability allows him to play "as a vampire"? Josh stupid allies anyway

[ quoted text not captured ] ? He plays CL as a vampire. So he gets the effects of CL as a vampire. So he plays the PA as a vampire, by virtue of resolving the CL effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD15F75...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > The effect of Charming Lobby is that the Lobbyist *plays* a > > political action card, by card text. How can Herald of > > Topheth play that second card "as a vampire" when it is not > > itself the card his ability allows him to play "as a vampire"? > > ? > He plays CL as a vampire. > So he gets the effects of CL as a vampire. > So he plays the PA as a vampire, by virtue of resolving the CL effect. I thought the rule was, they are treated as vampires by the cards they are playing as vampires. So CL treats Herald of Topheth as a vampire, allowing him to call a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand. But the political action card in your hand is not a card requiring Daimoinon, Presence, or Potence, and so the Herald can't play it "as a vampire", even though Charming Lobby tells him to "play that card". Because he's considered a vampire by Charming Lobby, but not by the political action card. Perhaps I've unnecessarily confused myself by thinking about the ally rulings too much. The effects are far too weird for me. :-) Josh stupid stupid ally who could love such a stupid ally?

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > He plays CL as a vampire. > > So he gets the effects of CL as a vampire. > > So he plays the PA as a vampire, by virtue of resolving the CL effect. > > I thought the rule was, they are treated as vampires by the > cards they are playing as vampires. So CL treats Herald of > Topheth as a vampire, allowing him to call a referendum listed > on a political action card in your hand. But the political > action card in your hand is not a card requiring Daimoinon, > Presence, or Potence, and so the Herald can't play it "as a > vampire", even though Charming Lobby tells him to "play that > card". Because he's considered a vampire by Charming Lobby, > but not by the political action card. He playes CL as a vampire. CL says he calls a referendum. "This vampire calls ..." He calls a referendum as a vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD12D43...@white-wolf.com>... > > #12. So would a Herald with a Laptop and Tasha Morgan (base bleed of 3) burn > > himself with a Justicar Retribution (since he's treated as a vampire)? > > If the Herald called Justicar Retribution with Charming Lobby and the referendum > passed, yes. > > > #13. Also, wouldn't it be a bit weird if a Herald was equipped with a Writ of > > Acceptance? As long as he's "treated as a vampire" (BTW: are allies sectless > > vampires during this time?), he's effectively a Camarilla vampire? Also, is it > > hypothetically possible for an ally to gain a title? > > No. The Writ doesn't treat him as a vampire. If there was a vote which said "burn all independant vampires" and the Herald called it by CL, would the Herald burn because he does not have a sect? I assume that independant just means "no sect" as opposed to a specific subset of "no sect" vampires -- unlike say the caitiff being clanless, where not all clanless vampires are Caitiff (Great Beast).

Shaun McIsaac wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > #12. So would a Herald with a Laptop and Tasha Morgan (base bleed of 3) burn > > > himself with a Justicar Retribution (since he's treated as a vampire)? > > > > If the Herald called Justicar Retribution with Charming Lobby and the referendum > > passed, yes. > If there was a vote which said "burn all [independent] vampires" and the > Herald called it by CL, would the Herald burn because he does not have > a sect? > I assume that independant just means "no sect" as opposed to a > specific subset of "no sect" vampires -- unlike say the caitiff being > clanless, where not all clanless vampires are Caitiff (Great Beast). Sure. Any vampire that is not Sabbat and is not Camarilla is Independent. This is stated explicitly in [10.3] [ quoted text not captured ]

> #1. Say a Rafastio Ghoul plays a Theft of Vitae (and is treated as a vampire > for all parts of strike resolution). This has always bugged me, since I've seen lots of people play this and gain 10+ life counters. If the Ghoul/Taraq/etc. is playing as if a vampire of *capacity 3*, shouldn't the excess drain off? ------------------ Ethan Burrow The Bane of Mike Ooi who is the Bane of LSJ who is the Bane of Noal who is the Bane of.... http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

Ethan Burrow wrote: > > > #1. Say a Rafastio Ghoul plays a Theft of Vitae (and is treated as a vampire > > for all parts of strike resolution). > > This has always bugged me, since I've seen lots of people play this > and gain 10+ life counters. If the Ghoul/Taraq/etc. is playing as if > a vampire of *capacity 3*, shouldn't the excess drain off? Nah. The excess doesn't drain off as part of the play. It drains off after (by which time it's life). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD2C07E...@white-wolf.com>... > Ethan Burrow wrote: > > > > > #1. Say a Rafastio Ghoul plays a Theft of Vitae (and is treated as a vampire > > > for all parts of strike resolution). > > > > This has always bugged me, since I've seen lots of people play this > > and gain 10+ life counters. If the Ghoul/Taraq/etc. is playing as if > > a vampire of *capacity 3*, shouldn't the excess drain off? > > Nah. The excess doesn't drain off as part of the play. It drains off > after (by which time it's life). Sorry, i don't understand this comment. Per the rules (6.4.5) "Steal Blood: This effect moves blood counters (or life counters) from the target to the striking minion. This does not count as damage, so the effect cannot be prevented with damage prevention effects. This effect occurs before the "heal damage" step of damage resolution, so the stolen blood can be used to heal damage even if the damage is inflicted simultaneously. If the stolen blood causes the striking vampire to have more blood than his capacity, the excess drains off immediately (as usual). " Doesn't the "play as a vamp" mean that the card treats as such for all parts of its resolution? How does this differ form a rafastio ghoul and burst of sunlight? I read another thread that raised an interesting point regarding this. How is it that once the strike resolution is complete that the rafastio ghoul still treats the incoming agg. dmg. "as if a vampire"? I would have thought that the seperatness of of dmg. and strike resolution would mean that the ghoul is no longer experiencing the effects of BoS and can thus ignore the agg. portion of dmg...hang on...thinking on my own now...if the ghoul is to recieve the dmg. at all then the text effect of BoS _has_ to still be in effect otherwise he would just ignore it all together by his no longer being a vampire. Hmm, I am lost. How long does the BoS treat the Rastio Ghoul as if a Vampire? Is it that the card treats it as such for the duration of the round and dmg, checks its source and then checks cardtext and then cjecks rules and then puts ghould in torpor? I am having troubles getting a grip on this. Not to criticise (the change doesn;t bother me in the slightest. If it is in aid of avioding other, more serious problematic issues , to which I am currently ignoprant of, then good), I would just liek to have an answer fpr my players other than "because". Scrote "Gone off to the corner a two sandwiches and a rulebook" P. of Newcastle Rules don't come in until the 31st you say? Tournament tomorrow *I think*. Oh for more Rafsation Ghouls and Bos (I never played the deck, not once *sniff*).

scrote wrote: > Sorry, i don't understand this comment. Per the rules (6.4.5) > Doesn't the "play as a vamp" mean that the card treats as such for all > parts of its resolution? Yes. And the blood doesn't drain off until after the resolution. The rules include the reminder, yes. > How is it that once the strike resolution is complete that the > rafastio ghoul still treats the incoming agg. dmg. "as if a vampire"? There is no incoming damage after strike resolution. > I would have thought that the seperatness of of dmg. and strike > resolution would mean that the ghoul is no longer experiencing the Damage resolution is not separate. It is one of the steps of strike resolution. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CD42A6D...@white-wolf.com... > scrote wrote: > > Sorry, i don't understand this comment. Per the rules (6.4.5) > > Doesn't the "play as a vamp" mean that the card treats as such for all > > parts of its resolution? > > Yes. > And the blood doesn't drain off until after the resolution. > The rules include the reminder, yes. > > > How is it that once the strike resolution is complete that the > > rafastio ghoul still treats the incoming agg. dmg. "as if a vampire"? > > There is no incoming damage after strike resolution. > > > I would have thought that the seperatness of of dmg. and strike > > resolution would mean that the ghoul is no longer experiencing the > > Damage resolution is not separate. It is one of the steps of > strike resolution. > Come on, it's clear as the sun of the Burst of light that if the rule threats the ally "as a vampire" for all the duration (until resolution) of the actual played card, then that ally can't gain blood (life) in excess of 3 (since he's "playing as a vapire if a 3 capacity", and "all blood in excess drain off"). In the very end, there's no a single good point that can be made for this damn new ruling about allies. So the quick question is: what this new ruling was intended for? Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

> Come on, > it's clear as the sun of the Burst of light that if the rule > threats the ally "as a vampire" for all the duration (until resolution) of > the actual played card, > then that ally can't gain blood (life) in excess of 3 (since he's "playing > as > a vapire if a 3 capacity", and "all blood in excess drain off"). > In the very end, there's no a single good point that can be made for > this damn new ruling about allies. > So the quick question is: what this new ruling was intended for? > > Emiliano As far as I understand it, the ally at no time during this scenario has any blood (at all). By card text "if a card would give him blood, give him life instead." Even if a Theft of Vitae did give him blood, which was then transformed into life, there would be no reason to count the life counters currently on the ally as blood counters, so the Thefted blood wouldn't be enough to drain off anyway. Lactamaeon.

newq...@rose-hulman.edu (lactamaeon) wrote in message news:<786c1f73.0205...@posting.google.com>... > As far as I understand it, the ally at no time during this scenario > has any blood (at all). By card text "if a card would give him blood, > give him life instead." Even if a Theft of Vitae did give him blood, > which was then transformed into life, there would be no reason to > count the life counters currently on the ally as blood counters, so > the Thefted blood wouldn't be enough to drain off anyway. If you look at it that way, no ally can ever play a discipline card that is an action (such as Cryptic Mission or Rutor's Hand), because a vampire with no blood can only hunt, and cannot take other actions. This is another good point. While allies pay for blood costs with life as a vampire with X capacity, no where does it say how much blood they have. If they temporarily turn into a vampire, which ignores their special ally properties (such as treating aggravated damage as normal), then wouldn't their sudden vampire status also ignore their other special ally properties, such as paying for blood with life? Vampires don't have life, therefor the ally no longer has life as soon as they become a vampire. Allies don't have blood, either, so they become a vampire with no blood, and can never actually pay for anything. The more people think about this, the more problems are going to appear. This is just an effect of a very large base of people thinking on the subject, many of whom are discussing it with their real-world playgroups, and bringing those thoughts back to the newsgroup. This is bound to bring up situations the rules team did not consider (which is good). JSpektr

> > As far as I understand it, the ally at no time during this scenario > > has any blood (at all). By card text "if a card would give him blood, > > give him life instead." Even if a Theft of Vitae did give him blood, > > which was then transformed into life, there would be no reason to > > count the life counters currently on the ally as blood counters, so > > the Thefted blood wouldn't be enough to drain off anyway. > > If you look at it that way, no ally can ever play a discipline card > that is an action (such as Cryptic Mission or Rutor's Hand), because a > vampire with no blood can only hunt, and cannot take other actions. I thought a vampire already committed to an action could continue it, regardless of blood. So the ally would start a Cryptic Mission, which it would be allowed to start and thus to finish. Even so, he's not considered a vampire by the rest of the rules, only by the Cryptic Mission itself. > This is another good point. While allies pay for blood costs with life > as a vampire with X capacity, no where does it say how much blood they > have. If they temporarily turn into a vampire, which ignores their > special ally properties (such as treating aggravated damage as > normal), then wouldn't their sudden vampire status also ignore their > other special ally properties, such as paying for blood with life? > Vampires don't have life, therefor the ally no longer has life as soon > as they become a vampire. Allies don't have blood, either, so they > become a vampire with no blood, and can never actually pay for > anything. They don't change into vampires. They're treated like vampires by the cards they play "as a vampire." By card text, they pay costs in life instead of blood. This is no problem. > The more people think about this, the more problems are going to > appear. This is just an effect of a very large base of people thinking > on the subject, many of whom are discussing it with their real-world > playgroups, and bringing those thoughts back to the newsgroup. This is > bound to bring up situations the rules team did not consider (which is > good). From what I saw prior to this ruling, most of the effects dealt with under this subject were dealt with in a fairly ad-hoc manner. Now there is one rule and (for the moment, at least) a Rules Team committed to it. There should certainly be a number of specific situations they haven't foreseen, and they should be able to answer them fairly quickly because they have a rule to guide it rather than just intuition. If they decide to change the actual rule, more power to them. They need a rule, though, that can apply in all the situations that they haven't foreseen, so that they don't have to foresee them all. That's the simplifying power of most rulings. Lactamaeon.

tetragrammaton wrote: > So the quick question is: what this new ruling was intended for? > I second this query. Raille

"lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio news:786c1f73.02050...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, i want to copy-and-paste here from the online rulebook (from 6.4.5, strike effect): "Steal Blood: This effect moves blood counters (or life counters) from the target to the striking minion. This does not count as damage, so the effect cannot be prevented with damage prevention effects. This effect occurs before the "heal damage" step of damage resolution, so the stolen blood can be used to heal damage even if the damage is inflicted simultaneously. *If the stolen blood causes the striking vampire to have more blood than his capacity, the excess drains off immediately (as usual)* " So, if the card treat the ally "as a vampire of a 3 capacity" until the resolution of theft of vitae, then that ally (vampire) cannot exceed his/her capacity (as a vampire) with the stolen blood. We got the following pertinent rules/rulings: - Aggravated damage is damage that a vampire cannot heal. Since it cannot be healed, aggravated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor (unless the damage is prevented, of course). Also, since it cannot be healed, the vampire doesn't burn any blood to heal it. - Allies and retainers treat aggravated damage the same as normal damage - There is no limit to an Ally's life (if some effect gives an Ally more life than it started with, the excess does not drain off). [TOM 19960604] - For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the appropriate cards....etc So, i would say that the current rules/rulings enviroment clashes there: allies playing Burst of Sunlight (or the like) "as a vampire of capacity X" suffers from agg damage "as a vampire" BUT allies playing Theft of Vitae "as a vampire of capacity X" do NOT suffer from the capacity X limitation "as a vampire". That's the problem, imho. Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome <snip>

> "Steal Blood: This effect moves blood counters (or life counters) from the > target to the striking minion. This does not count as damage, so the effect > cannot be prevented with damage prevention effects. This effect occurs > before the "heal damage" step of damage resolution, so the stolen blood can > be used to heal damage even if the damage is inflicted simultaneously. *If > the stolen blood causes the striking vampire to have more blood than his > capacity, the excess drains off immediately (as usual)* " > > So, if the card treat the ally "as a vampire of a 3 capacity" until the > resolution of theft of vitae, > then that ally (vampire) cannot exceed his/her capacity (as a vampire) with > the stolen blood. > We got the following pertinent rules/rulings: So a "vampire" of capacity 3 has one blood that he's stolen, which immediately turns into life (per the ally's card text). He now has 0 blood, well under his 3 capacity. He's never over capacity to begin with, unless you want to argue my previous post (which you aren't arguing, here). > - Aggravated damage is damage that a vampire cannot heal. Since it cannot be > healed, aggravated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor (unless the > damage is prevented, of course). Also, since it cannot be healed, the > vampire doesn't burn any blood to heal it. > > - Allies and retainers treat aggravated damage the same as normal damage > > - There is no limit to an Ally's life (if some effect gives an Ally more > life than it started with, the excess does not drain off). [TOM 19960604] > > - For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > appropriate cards....etc > > So, i would say that the current rules/rulings enviroment clashes there: > allies playing Burst of Sunlight (or the like) "as a vampire of capacity X" > suffers from agg damage "as a vampire" > BUT > allies playing Theft of Vitae "as a vampire of capacity X" do NOT suffer > from the capacity X limitation "as a vampire". > That's the problem, imho. There is no such problem, unless you argue against my previous post. If you want to, do so, but you haven't here. Lactamaeon.