Seeds of Corruption Question

A quick question about the Seeds of Corruption (nice card): When the Vampire pays the additional burnings of blood? Say, a "Seeded" Vamp with 0 blood who must hunt: 1. Takes the hunting action, gains the blood from the(succesful) action, then he burns the (1or2or3) blood due the Seeds on him. or: 2. Tries (and fails) to burn the (1or2or3) blood from Seeds, then he performs the hunting action, then, if succesful, he gains the proper amount of blood? Thanks in advance. Aemilianus, Prince of Rome. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8bgrkh$qbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tetragr...@my-deja.com writes >2. Tries (and fails) to burn the (1or2or3) blood from Seeds, then > he performs the hunting action, then, if succesful, he gains the > proper amount of blood? This is the correct way to do it. You burn the blood for Seeds of Corruption when you attempt the action, so even if the action is blocked or fails, you will have already burned the blood. Net result: Your vampire ends up with 1 blood on it after a successful hunt, even with Seeds of Corruption. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <8bgrkh$qbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > A quick question about the Seeds of Corruption (nice card): > When the Vampire pays the additional burnings of blood? > Say, a "Seeded" Vamp with 0 blood who must hunt: > > 1. Takes the hunting action, gains the blood from the(succesful) > action, then he burns the (1or2or3) blood due the Seeds on him. > > or: > > 2. Tries (and fails) to burn the (1or2or3) blood from Seeds, then > he performs the hunting action, then, if succesful, he gains the > proper amount of blood? > This is kind of right if I read it correctly. Vampire takes action to hunt. Burns blood. Then gains blood from action. Brent Ravnos Man [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <8bgrkh$qbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tetragr...@my-deja.com > writes > >2. Tries (and fails) to burn the (1or2or3) blood from Seeds, then > > he performs the hunting action, then, if succesful, he gains the > > proper amount of blood? > > This is the correct way to do it. You burn the blood for Seeds of > Corruption when you attempt the action, so even if the action is > blocked or fails, you will have already burned the blood. > > Net result: Your vampire ends up with 1 blood on it after a successful > hunt, even with Seeds of Corruption. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <8bnr1l$142$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <8bgrkh$qbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tetragr...@my-deja.com >> writes >> >2. Tries (and fails) to burn the (1or2or3) blood from Seeds, then >> > he performs the hunting action, then, if succesful, he gains the >> > proper amount of blood? >> >> This is the correct way to do it. You burn the blood for Seeds of >> Corruption when you attempt the action, so even if the action is >> blocked or fails, you will have already burned the blood. >> >> Net result: Your vampire ends up with 1 blood on it after a successful >> hunt, even with Seeds of Corruption. > >Correct. I was under the impression that a vampire's attempted action fails if they cannot pay for it... Attempting to hunt with a vamp at 0 blood should fail if the seed's additional cost comes off first. A failed hunt does not add blood to the vampire... right? [ quoted text not captured ]

John B wrote: > LSJ wrote in message <8bnr1l$142$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > >James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> tetragr...@my-deja.com writes: > >> >2. Tries (and fails) to burn the (1or2or3) blood from Seeds, then > >> > he performs the hunting action, then, if succesful, he gains the > >> > proper amount of blood. > >> > >> This is the correct way to do it. You burn the blood for Seeds of > >> Corruption when you attempt the action, so even if the action is > >> blocked or fails, you will have already burned the blood. > >Correct. > > I was under the impression that a vampire's attempted action fails if they > cannot pay for it... Attempting to hunt with a vamp at 0 blood should fail > if the seed's additional cost comes off first. A failed hunt does not add > blood to the vampire... right? Yes. But he *can* pay for the hunt: hunting costs zero, which he pays. He can pay this zero (since he has zero blood) even after burning (or failing to burn) a blood (or two or three) for Seeds of Corruption. Seed's effect causes the vampire to burn a blood (or more) when he attempts an action. It doesn't increase the cost of the action. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

"John B" <John_B...@Hotmail.com> wrote: > I was under the impression that a vampire's attempted action > fails if they cannot pay for it... Correct. But there is a distinction to be made between "paying" blood and "burning" blood. > Attempting to hunt with a vamp at 0 blood should fail if the seed's > additional cost comes off first. Hunting is a free action in terms of cost. Since Seeds burns blood, and there is no blood to burn the action is successful. If an effect increased the cost of the action itself (i.e., Terror Frenzy's effect on combat cards) than you would be correct. Noal McDonald Priscus of Farmington Hills, MI National Jyhad Leagu -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. [ quoted text not captured ]

John B wrote in message ... > >I was under the impression that a vampire's attempted action fails if they >cannot pay for it... Attempting to hunt with a vamp at 0 blood should fail >if the seed's additional cost comes off first. A failed hunt does not add >blood to the vampire... right? > What you are missing is the fact that a "Burn Blood" effect is _not_ the same thing as increasing the cost of an action. "Burn x blood" is a specifically defined effect, part of the definition of which is that burning blood effects in excess of current blood on the vampire are ignored. Thus, and empty (Seeded) vamp attempts to hunt. The "Burn x blood" phrase goes into effect, since the vampire is empty, the effect is in essence ignored (or if it weren't empty, it would burn X to the extent it could). Next block attempts occur, and the action is resolved as normal. If successful, a blood is put on the vamp from the blood bank. The definition of "Burn x blood" doesn't say that failure to fulfill burning x blood nullifies the action.... Hope this clarifies... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > If an effect increased the cost of the action itself > (i.e., Terror Frenzy's effect on combat cards)... Terror Frenzy does not increase the cost of combat cards. It causes a burn blood effect when combat cards are played. [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Terror Frenzy does not increase the cost of combat cards. > It causes a burn blood effect when combat cards are played. > [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] The text is "Opposing minion pays an additional blood when playing combat cards this combat." Seems to me that the word "pays" indicates a cost, rather than burn effect. *shakes head* Too much damned errata in this game. Noal -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Terror Frenzy does not increase the cost of combat cards. > > It causes a burn blood effect when combat cards are played. > > [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] > > The text is "Opposing minion pays an additional blood when playing > combat cards this combat." Seems to me that the word "pays" indicates a > cost, rather than burn effect. Yes, "pays" (instead of "burns") indicates a cost. As I said last week. And the word "when" (instead of "to") indicates that it is not a cost. As I said last week. > *shakes head* > Too much [...] errata in this game. Well, contradictory card text requires errata in some form or another, by definition. As unsatifactory as that is, it is unavoidable. I wish it were better, as well, of course. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

>> Noal McDonald wrote: >> The text is "Opposing minion pays an additional blood when >> playing combat cards this combat." Seems to me that the word >> "pays" indicates a cost, rather than burn effect. > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes, "pays" (instead of "burns") indicates a cost. > As I said last week. And the word "when" (instead of "to") > indicates that it is not a cost. As I said last week. I would submit that the stronger implication is in the word "pays." If the other word in question was "after" instead of "when," I would agree with you. However, as timing is indicated to be as the card is played, I would disagree with you. I was also under the impression that the rules team was comprised of more than one person and that rulings were to be issued at regular intervals...quarterly IIRC. Is that not still the case? > Well, contradictory card text requires errata in some form or another, > by definition. As unsatifactory as that is, it is unavoidable. > I wish it were better, as well, of course. However, there is a lot of errata that has been issued where neither clarification nor a game balance correction was needed. Before issuing new rulings, I'd suggest eliminating some of the older stuff first. I'm not trying to be an asshole, Scott. I'm just not eager to see rulings made in the context of a reply to a question and then considered to be official. That sort of thing troubles me and leads me to believe that we will be seeing more errata in the future, not less. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League -- "All authority belongs to the people." --Thomas Jefferson [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8btrvp$q6q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >I would submit that the stronger implication is in the word "pays." If >the other word in question was "after" instead of "when," I would agree >with you. However, as timing is indicated to be as the card is played, >I would disagree with you. I second that emotion. I certainly always interpreted the word "pays" to imply "payment" not "effect". -- James Coupe

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > I was also under the impression that the rules team was comprised of > more than one person and that rulings were to be issued at regular > intervals...quarterly IIRC. Is that not still the case? More than one person: yes. Rulings issued at regular intervals (e.g. quarterly): no. Rulings are issued as warranted. > [...] I'm just not eager to see > rulings made in the context of a reply to a question and then > considered > to be official. That sort of thing troubles me Can't be helped. Answers (incl. rulings) that I make in the context of replies to questions are official. That is the inherent to the position of net.rep. > and leads me to believe > that we will be seeing more errata in the future, not less. I don't see how you make that leap. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote in message <8btigk$en0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Terror Frenzy does not increase the cost of combat cards. >> It causes a burn blood effect when combat cards are played. >> [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] > >The text is "Opposing minion pays an additional blood when playing >combat cards this combat." Seems to me that the word "pays" indicates a >cost, rather than burn effect. I see, so in your interpretation, removing blood from a vampire in payment is not the same as burning blood from your vampire. I had understood the term 'burn' to refer to any removal of blood from the vampire ( eg: burns blood to heal itself in combat, burns blood to access certain powers, burns blood to perform certain actions) I have not been making the sharp distinction between "cost" and "removal". Indeed the wording of SoC is "burns an additional blood for each action he or she performs" I read this as the action costs 1 more blood to be successful, but the card doesn't specifically state this. > >*shakes head* >Too much damned errata in this game. Indeed > >Noal >-- >"I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." >"There ought to be limits to freedom." >--George W. Bush >Don't vote for a son of a Bush. > > [ quoted text not captured ]

John B wrote in message ... > >Noal McDonald wrote in message <8btigk$en0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Terror Frenzy does not increase the cost of combat cards. >>> It causes a burn blood effect when combat cards are played. >>> [LSJ 25-MAR-2000] >> >>The text is "Opposing minion pays an additional blood when playing >>combat cards this combat." Seems to me that the word "pays" indicates a >>cost, rather than burn effect. > > >I see, so in your interpretation, removing blood from a vampire in payment >is not the same as burning blood from your vampire. > >I had understood the term 'burn' to refer to any removal of blood from the >vampire ( eg: burns blood to heal itself in combat, burns blood to access >certain powers, burns blood to perform certain actions) I have not been >making the sharp distinction between "cost" and "removal". Indeed the >wording of SoC is "burns an additional blood for each action he or she >performs" I read this as the action costs 1 more blood to be successful, but >the card doesn't specifically state this. Minor addition: from the Revised Rulebook section 1.2.2 2. Blood Counters: Blood counters are an integral part of the game. Each player needs about forty counters: thirty for her starting pool and an extra ten blood counters to help fill the communal blood bank. When you burn a blood counter, you return it to the blood bank. Blood counters that you “pay” or “spend” are also considered burned. Blood counters can be any convenient items, such as pennies, glass beads, or stones. Single-item methods of keeping track of changing numbers (e.g., dice) are discouraged, due to the frequent need to move counters from one place to another. are grouped into sects (see Vampire Sects, sec. 10). Blood counters that you "pay" or "spend" are also considered burned? How do you distinguish between removed blood and spent blood? The rules seem to make no such distinctions...they are all "burnt". So the text of the Seeds of Corruption become ambiguous. I am assuming that people dislike a card who function prohibits the vampire from successfully hunting. Perhaps there have been some errata not reflected in this rule book?

In article <se79s3s...@corp.supernews.com>, John B <John_B...@Hotmail.com> writes >How do you distinguish between removed blood and spent blood? The rules seem >to make no such distinctions...they are all "burnt". Indeed. However, some are burnt as effects (e.g. Blood to Water has a burn 5 blood clause on it), and some are burned as payment (e.g. the 1 blood you have to spend to Deflection someone). Consider the similar situation: All vampires can be burned, but some are burned through diablerie and some are burned through excessive aggravated damage. The end effect is the same, but the mechanism invoked to reach that effect may be different. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4ZWNeIBJ...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <se79s3s...@corp.supernews.com>, John B > <John_B...@Hotmail.com> writes > >How do you distinguish between removed blood and spent blood? The rules seem > >to make no such distinctions...they are all "burnt". > > Indeed. However, some are burnt as effects (e.g. Blood to Water has a > burn 5 blood clause on it), and some are burned as payment (e.g. the 1 > blood you have to spend to Deflection someone). > > Consider the similar situation: All vampires can be burned, but some > are burned through diablerie and some are burned through excessive > aggravated damage. > > The end effect is the same, but the mechanism invoked to reach that > effect may be different. Uh, i fell a bit disoriented. About Terror Frenzy the text was changed from "Pays an additonal blood" in "burns an additional blood" effect. Right? What we should read on Dragos' text, then? The text reads "Dragos does not have to BURN blood to play combat cards". Dragos, by the stated difference between "pay blood" and "burn blood" effects, should then pay combat cards' cost as normal. At the same time, he should ignore any effect against him that says " BURN X additional blood to play combat cards". But the things above are quite the contrary: aren't they? I mean, Dragos don't have to PAY blood for combat cards (not "Burn"). Is this right? However, the latest errata i was able to read about Dragos/Terror Frenzy is: [LSJ 19960530]- If Dragos's opponent plays superior Terror Frenzy, Dragos has to PAY one blood for each combat card he play in that combat. Is text above to be changed from - "pay one blood" in - "burn one blood"? Anyway, can someone list all the cards that call for a "Paying additional cost" effect and which cards commits a vamp for a "Burn additional blood" instead ? If i got things correctly the rules are: PAY additional blood = the minion pays the (additional) cost or he don't get the (card's) effect. BURN additional blood = the minion burns the additional blood if he can, but if he don't you still get the (card's) effect. Clarifications and comments welcome. Aemilianus, Prince of Rome. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Consider the similar situation: All vampires can be burned, but some > > are burned through diablerie and some are burned through excessive > > aggravated damage. > > > > The end effect is the same, but the mechanism invoked to reach that > > effect may be different. > > Uh, i fell a bit disoriented. > About Terror Frenzy the text was changed from "Pays an additonal > blood" in "burns an additional blood" effect. > Right? right. > What we should read on Dragos' text, then? > The text reads "Dragos does not have to BURN blood to play combat > cards". > > Dragos, by the stated difference between "pay blood" and "burn blood" > effects, should then pay combat cards' cost as normal. By that line of reasoning, "paying" is a specific form of "burning". The "to" in Dragos' text implies "cost". > At the same time, he should ignore any effect against him that says " > BURN X additional blood to play combat cards". > But the things above are quite the contrary: aren't they? > I mean, Dragos don't have to PAY blood for combat cards (not "Burn"). > Is this right? He doesn't have to burn blood *to* play combat cards. Since paying the cost would be burning blood to play... > However, the latest errata i was able to read about Dragos/Terror > Frenzy is: > > [LSJ 19960530]- > If Dragos's opponent plays superior Terror Frenzy, Dragos has to PAY > one blood for each combat card he play in that combat. > > Is text above to be changed from - "pay one blood" > in - "burn one blood"? Yes - he is paying/burning an additional blood. That ruling was made before the contradiction in Terror Frenzy's text was noted, and so operated with the "pay" verbage present on Frenzy. > Anyway, can someone list all the cards that call for a "Paying > additional cost" effect > and > which cards commits a vamp for a "Burn additional blood" instead ? > If i got things correctly the rules are: > > PAY additional blood = the minion pays the (additional) cost or he > don't get the (card's) effect. <some verb> additional blood "to" do something = the minion <verbs> the additional "cost" or he doesn't get the card's effect. > BURN additional blood = the minion burns the additional blood if he > can, but if he don't you still get the (card's) effect. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > <some verb> additional blood "to" do something = the minion <verbs> > the additional "cost" or he doesn't get the card's effect. Heh. You gotta be getting frustrated by all of this by now, Scott. I'll have to buy you a beer at the pub across the street from the convention center during Origins to make it up to you. *grin* Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8c0gjr$p55$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] > <some verb> additional blood "to" do something = the minion <verbs> > the additional "cost" or he doesn't get the card's effect. It would be easier to understand with a given "Burn" or a "Pay" effect in all of the concerned cards' text. I'm saying this with the upcoming new releases of Vtes in mind. Thanks for the clarifications anyway. Aemilianus, Prince of Rome. [ quoted text not captured ]