"Some minions are identified as Red List. Any Methuselah may use a
master phase action to mark a Red List minion for the current turn. Any
ready vampire she controls may enter combat with a marked Red List
minion as a +1 stealth (D) action that costs 1 blood. Each vampire can
take this action only once each turn."
Well, i can say that i kinda expected that limited rush-ability of
the Red List minions...
"If a vampire burns a Red List minion in combat or as a (D) action
(including diablerie), his controller may go through her library, ash
heap and/or hand to get a master trophy card to put on that vampire and
then reshuffle her library or draw back up to her hand size as
necessary.
See the Trophy rule for more about playing Trophies."
WOW, search library/ash heap/hand!!!!!!! i believe the last sentence,
short of implies that there may be a restriction on how many trophies
or how many master trophies a vampire can have. Or maybe a restriction
to only gain 1 trophy from a burned red-list (as reaction/action mod
trophies will be released, if the preview of the winter quaterly is
accurate).
Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the use
of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's good...
George
geo...@for.auth.gr wrote:
> Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the use
> of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's good...
Yeah, it'll be funny seeing people go 'I block your Red List minion
from self-rescuing.. and push him back into torpor, because I WANNA EAT
HIM ON MY TURN!"
> George
-John Flournoy
geo...@for.auth.gr wrote:
> Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the use
> of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's good...
PTO is neither a combat nor a (D) action.
--
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/
In message <1twId.68106$w62....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>geo...@for.auth.gr wrote:>> Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the use
>> of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's good...>
>PTO is neither a combat nor a (D) action.
You missed out George's customary:
"Learn to read."
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though!
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.
> >> Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the
use
> >> of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's
good...
> >
> >PTO is neither a combat nor a (D) action.
>
> You missed out George's customary:
>
> "Learn to read."
No...you did. "Permit" means allow, which is exactly the opposite of
what the rule says.
CthuluKitty
In message <1106531395.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Eh?
George, when following up people making minor errors, appears to think
that "Learn to read" is an appropriate form of address. I was
suggesting that it might be an appropriate form of address when George
makes mistakes.
I am, therefore, having trouble parsing your comment as I understand
what the rule does and does not allow.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:1106531395.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
To recap:
George said that the red list rule permitted the use of PTO to gaina trophy
(a language mistake, i feel, i think he ment to use 'restrict' rather than
permit).
Then LSJ picked him up on his error.
Then James chided Scott for not including the 'learn to read' phrase that
George has used in the past when other people have misinterpretted his
posts. Jame's thrust being that Scott could have rightly told George to read
the Red List rule as it would put him straight on his apparent
mis-assumption.
CthuluKitty then mis-interpretted James response as being a barb aimed at
Scott for mis-reading George's question, rather than for what it was: a barb
aimed at George for mis-reading the Red List rule (which he proably didn't,
he just used the wrong word IMO- unfortunately one with the opposite meaning
to that which he ment).
Oh, the hilarity. Join me again tomorrow, when I will explain the classic
Two Ronnies sketch: 'Fork Handles'.
Matt Green.
I (George) once wrote:
> >> Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the
use
> >> of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's
good
...
LSJ responded:
> >PTO is neither a combat nor a (D) action.
James Coupe got mislead by my Chimestry powers and
responded to LSJ:
> You missed out George's customary:> "Learn to read."
Finaly, CthuluKitty, though not knowing how to correctly spell
"Cthulhu",
saw through the illusion of "prohibits" and set things right:
No...you did. "Permit" means allow, which is exactly the opposite of
what the rule says.
Yes, that was a mistake, while i know what "permit" means and though
i wanted to use "prohibit", somehow i got confused and typed "permits".
It seems that James, got mislead by me talking about "restriction" and
didn't see the stupid "permits", that somehow tricked "prohibits" out
of
the post and got its place. :)
Anyway, sorry for the confusion, i meant to say "prohibits".
However, it seems that my chimestry powers are growing, i managed to
trick James with my illusion of "permits" and thought it was a
"prohibits" :)
George
James wrote:
Eh?
George, when following up people making minor errors, appears to think
that "Learn to read" is an appropriate form of address. I was
suggesting that it might be an appropriate form of address when George
makes mistakes.
I am, therefore, having trouble parsing your comment as I understand
what the rule does and does not allow.
sorry for the confusion, you know that i meant to say "prohibits"
instead
of "permits", it was an honest mistake.
Maybe next time you should be more careful, before you go telling LSJ
to "learn to read" :P
I am really sorry, i never meant to trick you with my Fatuus powers...
George
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:35:07 +0000 (UTC), "Matt Green"
<ma...@rid0utass0ciates.c0.uk> scrawled:
>
>Oh, the hilarity. Join me again tomorrow, when I will explain the classic
>Two Ronnies sketch: 'Fork Handles'.
the Two Ronnies! oh man, that takes me back....
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
James wrote:
Eh?
George, when following up people making minor errors, appears to think
that "Learn to read" is an appropriate form of address. I was
suggesting that it might be an appropriate form of address when George
makes mistakes.
I am, therefore, having trouble parsing your comment as I understand
what the rule does and does not allow.
Well, i know to read well. I having difficulties to write ;)
Anyway, you know that i meant to say "prohibits" instead of "permits".
You see, i was talking about "restrictions"... anyway...
Though you tried to "flame" me, it got back to you like a bumerang...
It seems that my "telepathic misdirection" actually worked ;)
George
geo...@for.auth.gr wrote:
> I (George) once wrote:>>>>Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the use
>>>>of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's good> ....>
> LSJ responded:>>>PTO is neither a combat nor a (D) action.> Anyway, sorry for the confusion, i meant to say "prohibits".
block/diablerize is burning in combat.
PTO is not one of the things that will allow you to get a trophy.
Amaranth is one of the things that will allow you to get a trophy.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> geo...@for.auth.gr wrote:>> I (George) once wrote:>>>>>Finaly, the "in combat" and "(D) action" restriction, permits the use
>>>>>of PTOs or block/diablerize to gain juicy trophies... that's good>> ....
>>
>> LSJ responded:>>>>PTO is neither a combat nor a (D) action.>> Anyway, sorry for the confusion, i meant to say "prohibits".> block/diablerize is burning in combat.
I think when he said "block/diablerize" he was talking about blocking
a Leave Torpor action and diablerizing as a result. Which would not
trigger a trophy.
LSJ wrote:
block/diablerize is burning in combat.
PTO is not one of the things that will allow you to get a trophy.
Amaranth is one of the things that will allow you to get a trophy.
Well, it seems that the misunderstandings (i blame me for this,
i should have explained better what i wanted to say) carry on...
I know that Amaranth is burning in combat, as amaranth is a combat
card and so it burns the vampire in combat.
During my initial post, i meant to say "prohibits" instead of
"permits", while
talking about the restrictions. (so i meant to say that the
restrictions prohibit
PTO and block/diablerize as means of gaining a trophy).
And by "block/diablerize" i didn't intend to mean
"block=>combat>amaranth",
but i meant "block a leave torpor action=>diablerize".
So, i think that i have finaly explained what i meant to say :)
George
Jozxyqk wrote:
I think when he said "block/diablerize" he was talking about blocking
a Leave Torpor action and diablerizing as a result. Which would not
trigger a trophy.
correct, it seems that it just takes one Greek guy to completely
confuse a whole group... ;)
Well, i take the blame for the whole Me-James Coupe-LSJ-CthuluKitty
confusion and i promise to explain better my thoughts from now on.
Additionaly, i promise to quote properly (i think i can finaly manage
to do
this, the new google groups-beta confused me a little bit in the
beggining)
and never to use my chimestry and auspex powers again to elude people
with "illusions of words" and "telepathic misdirections" ;)
George
<geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
news:1106570686.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> And by "block/diablerize" i didn't intend to mean
> "block=>combat>amaranth",
> but i meant "block a leave torpor action=>diablerize".
>
> So, i think that i have finaly explained what i meant to say :)
Ah. Right.
Blocking a leave torpor action and diablerizing the
acting vampire will not permit a Trophy grab, correct.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
LSJ wrote:
Ah. Right.
Blocking a leave torpor action and diablerizing the
acting vampire will not permit a Trophy grab, correct.
yeah... What about Gisela Harden's special ?
Her burning special is a D action, so if she burns an
uncontrolled vampire (that is inherently a red list one)
she can gain a master trophy card, right ?
what about a vampire, who became a red list one with
a "red list" action and got banished ? i believe that it
remains a red list vampire while uncontrolled, as the red
list card is not put on the vampire (so as to be out of play
while the vampire is uncontrolled due to banishement)
but just makes the vampire a red list one. So, her special
would also apply in this case, right ?
George
> > LSJ responded:> block/diablerize is burning in combat.
Wait, what now? My playgroup has been playing this wrong for years (not that
it's made *that* much of a difference). If that's true, and one of my
minions blocks/diablerizes another minion with Anathema on them, does the
Anathema trigger, like it triggers when you play Amaranth?
~Shankar
<geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
news:1106572620....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> Ah. Right.
> Blocking a leave torpor action and diablerizing the
> acting vampire will not permit a Trophy grab, correct.
>
>
> yeah... What about Gisela Harden's special ?
>
> Her burning special is a D action, so if she burns an
> uncontrolled vampire (that is inherently a red list one)
> she can gain a master trophy card, right ?
Yeah.
> what about a vampire, who became a red list one with
> a "red list" action and got banished ? i believe that it
> remains a red list vampire while uncontrolled, as the red
> list card is not put on the vampire (so as to be out of play
> while the vampire is uncontrolled due to banishement)
> but just makes the vampire a red list one. So, her special
> would also apply in this case, right ?
Yeah.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Shankar Gupta" <shanka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e_6Jd.74253$kq2....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
See the rest of the post for the Amaranth context.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Shankar wrote:
Wait, what now? My playgroup has been playing this wrong for years (not
that
it's made *that* much of a difference). If that's true, and one of my
minions blocks/diablerizes another minion with Anathema on them, does
the
Anathema trigger, like it triggers when you play Amaranth?
Anathema is not triggered by Amaranth, Amaranth burns the vampire in
combat,
Anathema burns the vampire in combat, too BUT is only triggered, when
the vampire
(having the anathema) is REDUCED to zero blood in combat, and not just
burned in
combat. So, aggravated damage + Amaranth would not trigger an anathema,
while
the sneaky Vitae Block if reduced a vampire to zero blood would trigger
it.
BTW, vitae block + anesthetic touch make a nice anathema collecting
combo, as long
as you don't try this shit on a 4(at least)-blooded hungry Tremere,
'cause he'll
maneuver to long range and drain you dry.
George
LSJ wrote:
> <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
> news:1106572620....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > yeah... What about Gisela Harden's special ?
> >
> > Her burning special is a D action, so if she burns an
> > uncontrolled vampire (that is inherently a red list one)
> > she can gain a master trophy card, right ?
>
> Yeah.
And this would also apply for Yong-Sun burning an inherently Red List
minion off the top of a crypt via his special, correct?
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
-John Flournoy
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106583710....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
> > news:1106572620....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > yeah... What about Gisela Harden's special ?
> > >
> > > Her burning special is a D action, so if she burns an
> > > uncontrolled vampire (that is inherently a red list one)
> > > she can gain a master trophy card, right ?
> >
> > Yeah.
>
> And this would also apply for Yong-Sun burning an inherently Red List
> minion off the top of a crypt via his special, correct?
Yes. The Red List Trophy rule doesn't specify "ready"
or "controlled", just "burned".
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Ah. Right.
> Blocking a leave torpor action and diablerizing the
> acting vampire will not permit a Trophy grab, correct.
>
Was this situation considered when making the Red List rule? It seems
a very slight rewording of the rule would have allowed for this.
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
message news:2005012411...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
A slight rewording will allow a great many things, true.
But it is not necessary to have them all allowed.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> George, when following up people making minor errors, appears to
think
> that "Learn to read" is an appropriate form of address. I was
> suggesting that it might be an appropriate form of address when
George
> makes mistakes.
Gotcha. I thought you were telling LSJ he should learn to read, when
in fact he was the only poster who read the original post correctly...
Didn't catch your joke...oh well...
CK
Finaly, CthuluKitty, though not knowing how to correctly spell
"Cthulhu",
saw through the illusion of "prohibits" and set things right:
Oh this again...actually I'm named after my cat Cthulu, who is evil but
not as evil as the great Cthulhu. For some reason she spells it
differently. Go figure. :)
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8blav0d14i1pn766t...@4ax.com...
> actually, amaranth on a vamp with blood and an anathema triggers the
> anathema.
Not any more.
> LSJ Oct 12 2001, 6:44 pm
Later reversed:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c624e11871666a8b
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 24 Jan 2005 06:42:51 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled:
>Anathema is not triggered by Amaranth, Amaranth burns the vampire in
>combat,
>Anathema burns the vampire in combat, too BUT is only triggered, when
>the vampire
>(having the anathema) is REDUCED to zero blood in combat, and not just
>burned in
>combat. So, aggravated damage + Amaranth would not trigger an anathema,
>while
>the sneaky Vitae Block if reduced a vampire to zero blood would trigger
>it.
actually, amaranth on a vamp with blood and an anathema triggers the
anathema.
*****
LSJ Oct 12 2001, 6:44 pm
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
From: LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:48:30 -0400
Local: Fri, Oct 12 2001 6:48 pm
Subject: Re: [LSJ] Anathema & Amaranth
Mike Ooi wrote:
> If a minion burdened with an Anathema, full of blood, suffers aggravated
> damage and is headed towards torpor, can the opposing minion play an
> Amaranth and receive pool for burning the vampire?
Yes.
[...]
--
LSJ (vtes...@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/
*****
Reasoning being that when you play amaranth, you resolve a diablerie.
a diablerie moves all the blood from the victim to the diablerist,
thus 'reducing the opposig minion to 0 blood in combat'.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 24 Jan 2005 03:06:02 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled:
>Maybe next time you should be more careful, before you go telling LSJ
>to "learn to read" :P
ack.
James was telling LSJ that LSJ should have included 'learn to read' in
lsj's post in which lsj was replying to george.
do we all get it now?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:17:35 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8blav0d14i1pn766t...@4ax.com...>> actually, amaranth on a vamp with blood and an anathema triggers the
>> anathema.>
>Not any more.
>>> LSJ Oct 12 2001, 6:44 pm>
>Later reversed:
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c624e11871666a8b
ah crap. i knew i should have taken the effort to do an advanced
search and sort by date.
sorry folks, my bad.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 24 Jan 2005 03:18:36 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled:
>Though you tried to "flame" me, it got back to you like a bumerang...
actually, that's "boomerang". a "bumerang" sounds somewhat
more.....intrusive.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Salem wrote:
actually, that's "boomerang". a "bumerang" sounds somewhat
more.....intrusive.
Well, i was talking about a "bumerang" and not a "boomerang",
it is a whole different thing... :P
"Bum-erang" is the "boomerang" of a bum... :)
George
James was telling LSJ that LSJ should have included 'learn to read' in
lsj's post in which lsj was replying to george.
do we all get it now?
...and what James was saying was irrelevant, he just felt like posting
something as obviously had nothing better to do, as i had read the card
correctly, but somehow wrote "permits" instead of "prohibits".
You see, i was talking about restrictions, so obviously i meant to
state
what the rule "prohibits" and not "permits", anyway as i have said
before
somehow, "permits" tricked "prohibits" out of my post and got its
place...
do we all get it now ? ;)
George
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kvacv0dm17q0sp11s...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Jan 2005 03:18:36 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr scrawled:
>>>Though you tried to "flame" me, it got back to you like a bumerang...>
> actually, that's "boomerang". a "bumerang" sounds somewhat
> more.....intrusive.
I think that's what your boomerang becomes if you throw it and then
someone distracts you, causing you to turn around.
Fred