LSJ, I was just noticing something about The Portrait:
The Portrait [AH]
Cardtype: Action
Clan: Toreador
Cost: 1 blood
(D) Show the top card of your prey's crypt to all players. If it is a
Nosferatu, the acting vampire burns 2 blood. If the capacity of the
revealed vampire is below 7, the acting vampire gains 2 blood (ignore
excess blood); if it is from 7 to 10, the acting vampire untaps and
bleeds your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth; if it is above 10, the
acting vampire burns 1 blood.
Now mind you, I think this card is pretty goofy, and could care less
if it doesn't get reprinted ever again, but...
Why is it that The Portrait's online text hasn't been updated to jibe
with the current text for Force of Will? Is it intended that The
Portrait will allow a minion to untap and then bleed without tapping?
I would think that the ideal text (relevant to the untap/bleed effect)
would be more along the lines of:
"...if it is from 7 to 10, the [this?] acting [tapped?] vampire [omit
reference to untapping|replace with "remains tapped"?] bleeds [is now
bleeding?] your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth..."
Or perhaps just:
"...if it is from 7 to 10, the acting vampire untaps, then taps to
bleed your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth..."
But hey, if bleeding, untapped Toreador is the goal, I'm all for
it...they need even more help than the Tremere. :)
Force of Will text below for completeness.
Xian
Force of Will [DS, FN]
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Fortitude
Only usable by a tapped vampire.
[for] (D) Bleed with +1 bleed. This vampire takes 2 points of
aggravated damage (damage not preventable) even if the action is
blocked. Damage occurs after the action or combat is resolved.
[FOR] As above, but with +2 bleed, and the acting vampire takes only 1
point of aggravated damage (damage not preventable).
Xian wrote:
> LSJ, I was just noticing something about The Portrait:
>
> The Portrait [AH]
> Cardtype: Action
> Clan: Toreador
> Cost: 1 blood
> (D) Show the top card of your prey's crypt to all players. If it is a
> Nosferatu, the acting vampire burns 2 blood. If the capacity of the
> revealed vampire is below 7, the acting vampire gains 2 blood (ignore
> excess blood); if it is from 7 to 10, the acting vampire untaps and
> bleeds your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth; if it is above 10, the
> acting vampire burns 1 blood.
>
> Now mind you, I think this card is pretty goofy, and could care less
> if it doesn't get reprinted ever again, but...
>
> Why is it that The Portrait's online text hasn't been updated to jibe
> with the current text for Force of Will? Is it intended that The
> Portrait will allow a minion to untap and then bleed without tapping?
No. The minion untaps and then takes another action. This is different
from Force of Will, which is a single (bleed) action.
> I would think that the ideal text (relevant to the untap/bleed effect)
> would be more along the lines of:
>
> "...if it is from 7 to 10, the [this?] acting [tapped?] vampire [omit
> reference to untapping|replace with "remains tapped"?] bleeds [is now
> bleeding?] your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth..."
No. That would cause confusion, as the action (being successfully resolved,
that is, unblocked) suddenly shifts to be an action awaiting resolution
(ready to be blocked, etc.)
> Or perhaps just:
>
> "...if it is from 7 to 10, the acting vampire untaps, then taps to
> bleed your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth..."
The current text, effectively. All actions incur a "taps to"
by default, per the rules.
--
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> wrote in message
news:3C755486...@white-wolf.com...
> > Or perhaps just:
> >
> > "...if it is from 7 to 10, the acting vampire untaps, then taps to
> > bleed your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth..."
>
> The current text, effectively. All actions incur a "taps to"
> by default, per the rules.
>
All actions defined in the rulebook say "{play the action card | declare
that you are bleeding | etc...} and tap the acting minion." In the
definition of action, it does not indicate that all actions involve tapping,
although all subsequent action defined in the rulebook *do* indicate that to
take that particular action you must tap.
In 6.2 Taking an Action, it does indicate that when you declare an action
and play the card (if any) from your hand, you tap the acting vampire.
However, in the case of the Portrait, the card has already been played, and
there isn't really a phase of "declaring the acting vampire". The first
action resolves, then the vampire is untapped and bleeds. It's unclear when
the action is declared, since the card has already been played before the
vampire untaps.
Granted, common sense states that the vampire taps to bleed, but it's not
readily apparent from card and rules text. It's somewhat like the old
version of Read Intentions (? - I think), where the superior line said
"Dodge" instead of "Strike: Dodge." Most people realized that it was a
strike, but somepeople played it as the ability to dodge your opponent's
strike and still be able to do damage yourself, during the same strike
resolution. The card was eventually reprinted to say "Strike: Dodge", as it
should have all along.
Hopefully the Portrait will never be reprinted, and I personally don't think
it needs errata, but due to the fact that the action given by the card takes
place outside the normal sequence of declare, play card, tap, resolve, it
*is* a little strange.
Chris Berger wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C755486...@white-wolf.com...
> > > Or perhaps just:
> > >
> > > "...if it is from 7 to 10, the acting vampire untaps, then taps to
> > > bleed your prey with +1 bleed at +1 stealth..."
> >
> > The current text, effectively. All actions incur a "taps to"
> > by default, per the rules.
> >
> All actions defined in the rulebook say "{play the action card | declare
> that you are bleeding | etc...} and tap the acting minion." In the
Right. Including "bleed".
> definition of action, it does not indicate that all actions involve tapping,
> although all subsequent action defined in the rulebook *do* indicate that to
> take that particular action you must tap.
It is sufficient that bleed is so described, but as you note:
> In 6.2 Taking an Action, it does indicate that when you declare an action
> and play the card (if any) from your hand, you tap the acting vampire.
... which covers any perceived omission of 6.1.1
> However, in the case of the Portrait, the card has already been played, and
> there isn't really a phase of "declaring the acting vampire". The first
Yes, there is.
The vampire untaps then a new action, a bleed, is begun. It is handled
like any other bleed.
> action resolves, then the vampire is untapped and bleeds. It's unclear when
> the action is declared, since the card has already been played before the
> vampire untaps.
What card? Portrait? OK. That action is done. The vampire who took that
action untaps and bleeds (card text). This is a cardless bleed.
> Granted, common sense states that the vampire taps to bleed, but it's not
> readily apparent from card and rules text. It's somewhat like the old
> version of Read Intentions (? - I think), where the superior line said
> "Dodge" instead of "Strike: Dodge." Most people realized that it was a
> strike, but somepeople played it as the ability to dodge your opponent's
> strike and still be able to do damage yourself, during the same strike
> resolution. The card was eventually reprinted to say "Strike: Dodge", as it
> should have all along.
... as it was all along. All dodges have always been strikes.
If, in jyhad, there was a dodge that wasn't a strike, it wouldn't
have any defined effect.
Similarly Portraits bleed. There is no defined effect for a bleed
that is not an action. Trying to make Portrait's bleed a non-action
is pointless.
> Hopefully the Portrait will never be reprinted, and I personally don't think
> it needs errata, but due to the fact that the action given by the card takes
> place outside the normal sequence of declare, play card, tap, resolve, it
> *is* a little strange.
It doesn't. The bleed action is declared, taps, and is resolved per the
normal rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Under NRA, Adrianne plays The Portrait. The vampire revealed is
capacity 8. Adrianne untaps, and then bleeds. Adrianne cannot bleed
again this turn.
Under NRA, Adrianne bleeds. Alexandra untaps her. Can she play the
portrait? Does this require knowledge of my prey's crypt, or does she
just do all of the action she can and then not the bleed action,
remaining untapped?
Hmm...
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02022...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ooh... good one. 8)
Usually if a vampire is required to do something it cannot, it becomes
"stuck" and cannot take any action. However the Potrait only forces him to
bleed "now", as opposed to hunting which is a continuing compulsion (i.e.
anytime the vampire is untapped with no blood, it must hunt... if it cannot,
it does nothing). So, it's unclear (to me, at least) whether the vampire
simply doesn't bleed, or doesn't bleed and can't act for the rest of the
turn.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C76262E...@white-wolf.com>...
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > Under NRA, Adrianne plays The Portrait. The vampire revealed is
> > capacity 8. Adrianne untaps, and then bleeds. Adrianne cannot bleed
> > again this turn.
> >
> > Under NRA, Adrianne bleeds. Alexandra untaps her. Can she play the
> > portrait? Does this require knowledge of my prey's crypt, or does she
> > just do all of the action she can and then not the bleed action,
> > remaining untapped?
>
> The latter. [LSJ 28-SEP-2000]
Ok, this has bugged me a little before: LSJ, you refer to a ruling
from 28 sep 2000 in the above post. But I cannot find any such ruling
on the WW site (neither on the alphabetical list, nor on the
chronological list).
This has happened to me before: you refer to a ruling I cannot find
anywhere. And, since I am running a tournament, and have printed all
rulings I could find (to make life easy on myself) I keep wondering:
where are those missing rulings?
Thanks
Tobias
Deventer
In message <8aa6db00.02022...@posting.google.com>, Tobias
<tobiasop...@hotmail.com> writes:
>This has happened to me before: you refer to a ruling I cannot find
>anywhere. And, since I am running a tournament, and have printed all
>rulings I could find (to make life easy on myself) I keep wondering:
>where are those missing rulings?
In posts, usually.
If *all* rulings were catalogued, you'd need to carry Google in your
pocket.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
Tobias wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Brian wrote:
> > > Under NRA, Adrianne bleeds. Alexandra untaps her. Can she play the
> > > portrait? Does this require knowledge of my prey's crypt, or does she
> > > just do all of the action she can and then not the bleed action,
> > > remaining untapped?
> >
> > The latter. [LSJ 28-SEP-2000]
>
> Ok, this has bugged me a little before: LSJ, you refer to a ruling
> from 28 sep 2000 in the above post. But I cannot find any such ruling
> on the WW site (neither on the alphabetical list, nor on the
> chronological list).
>
> This has happened to me before: you refer to a ruling I cannot find
> anywhere. And, since I am running a tournament, and have printed all
> rulings I could find (to make life easy on myself) I keep wondering:
> where are those missing rulings?
On Google.
You can use the "power search" to search by author:LSJ and
by date. Or you can just search for "portrait bleed author:LSJ"
and see if any of the results were posted on the date in question.
The "ruling" above is just a clarification. It follows directly
from the NRA rule.
It isn't on the rulings list on the WW site because it isn't
important enough to be there. (When was the last time you saw
a portrait played by someone who had already bled that turn?)
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C755486...@white-wolf.com>...
> Xian wrote:
> > Why is it that The Portrait's online text hasn't been updated to jibe
> > with the current text for Force of Will? Is it intended that The
> > Portrait will allow a minion to untap and then bleed without tapping?
>
> No. The minion untaps and then takes another action. This is different
> from Force of Will, which is a single (bleed) action.
If you could clarify further than you already have, I would appreciate
it. I'm not seeing the difference between:
* (old) Force of Will's untap & bleed, only usable by a tapped vampire
* The Portrait's action which results in a tapped vampire that then
untaps & bleeds, (seemingly) a similar effect, if you infer that the
outcome of discovering a 7-10 capacity vampire is functionally the
same as an action only able to be performed by a tapped vampire
[tapped from the quasi-resolution of The Portrait], and it now untaps
(& bleeds) as the resolution of the action.
The whole problem here is probably the part right after I start using
words like "infer", hmm? :)
Or, why not instead of "...untaps and..." just "this vampire is now
bleeding at..."?
I'm willing to take your word for it that they're effectively
different, so if you can provide no further clarification, I'll let it
go...they just seem so similar that it's strange that one was changed,
and the other was not. I don't think it's a highly necessary change
(if it were determined that I was somehow correct in some sort of
wacky mix-up), as everyone I know plays it as "untap, then tap to
bleed", but I thought I'd ask.
Xian
Xian wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Xian wrote:
> > > Why is it that The Portrait's online text hasn't been updated to jibe
> > > with the current text for Force of Will? Is it intended that The
> > > Portrait will allow a minion to untap and then bleed without tapping?
> >
> > No. The minion untaps and then takes another action. This is different
> > from Force of Will, which is a single (bleed) action.
>
> If you could clarify further than you already have, I would appreciate
> it. I'm not seeing the difference between:
>
> * (old) Force of Will's untap & bleed, only usable by a tapped vampire
> * The Portrait's action which results in a tapped vampire that then
> untaps & bleeds, (seemingly) a similar effect, if you infer that the
> outcome of discovering a 7-10 capacity vampire is functionally the
> same as an action only able to be performed by a tapped vampire
> [tapped from the quasi-resolution of The Portrait], and it now untaps
> (& bleeds) as the resolution of the action.
Probably because there is no difference. Old FoW was two actions.
The first, FoW, cost 1 blood, untapped the vampire, and (somehow)
created an aggravated damage effect that occured after the second
action.
The fancy footwork wasn't worth the migraines, [TOM 14-MAY-1996]
and so it was errata'ed to be a single action (a bleed) in
[RTR 31-MAY-1996]
> The whole problem here is probably the part right after I start using
> words like "infer", hmm? :)
>
> Or, why not instead of "...untaps and..." just "this vampire is now
> bleeding at..."?
Converts the type of action - not a good thing.
Esp. since the bleed target has already failed to block.
> I'm willing to take your word for it that they're effectively
> different, so if you can provide no further clarification, I'll let it
> go...they just seem so similar that it's strange that one was changed,
> and the other was not. I don't think it's a highly necessary change
> (if it were determined that I was somehow correct in some sort of
> wacky mix-up), as everyone I know plays it as "untap, then tap to
> bleed", but I thought I'd ask.
Portrait offers no headaches w.r.t. post-(second)-action effects
and also doesn't have a cost and has a second action that only
sometimes occurs, so isn't really a candidate for conversion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <dbc1153.02022...@posting.google.com>, Xian
<xb...@qwest.net> writes:
>If you could clarify further than you already have, I would appreciate
>it.
Force of Will is one action. You bleed.
Portrait is two. You do the freaky bit, then you untap, then you bleed
(second action, second tap).
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C7673C5...@white-wolf.com...
> Xian wrote:
> > If you could clarify further than you already have, I would appreciate
> > it. I'm not seeing the difference between:
>> Probably because there is no difference. Old FoW was two actions.
> The first, FoW, cost 1 blood, untapped the vampire, and (somehow)
> created an aggravated damage effect that occured after the second
> action.
>
> The fancy footwork wasn't worth the migraines, [TOM 14-MAY-1996]
> and so it was errata'ed to be a single action (a bleed) in
> [RTR 31-MAY-1996]
Okay, works for me. Thanks for the in-depth explanation for those of us at
the back of the class. :)
Xian
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <8aa6db00.02022...@posting.google.com>, Tobias
> <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >This has happened to me before: you refer to a ruling I cannot find
> >anywhere. And, since I am running a tournament, and have printed all
> >rulings I could find (to make life easy on myself) I keep wondering:
> >where are those missing rulings?
>
> In posts, usually.
>
> If *all* rulings were catalogued, you'd need to carry Google in your
> pocket.
No. You'd just organize them by card or (the generalized ones) stick
them under whatever general heading they belong. It would work fine.
There'd just be more stuff there than there is now.
(sigh)
Fred
In message <3C770555...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>> If *all* rulings were catalogued, you'd need to carry Google in your
>> pocket.>
>No. You'd just organize them by card or (the generalized ones) stick
>them under whatever general heading they belong. It would work fine.
>There'd just be more stuff there than there is now.
Do you have any idea just how many rulings LSJ issues to players
practically every time they ask a question?
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3C770555...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
> >> If *all* rulings were catalogued, you'd need to carry Google in your
> >> pocket.
> >
> >No. You'd just organize them by card or (the generalized ones) stick
> >them under whatever general heading they belong. It would work fine.
> >There'd just be more stuff there than there is now.
>
> Do you have any idea just how many rulings LSJ issues to players
> practically every time they ask a question?
I anyone makes a page of all the rulings, I'll be happy to link to it from
the WW VTES page.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3C770555...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
> >> If *all* rulings were catalogued, you'd need to carry Google in your
> >> pocket.
> >
> >No. You'd just organize them by card or (the generalized ones) stick
> >them under whatever general heading they belong. It would work fine.
> >There'd just be more stuff there than there is now.
>
> Do you have any idea just how many rulings LSJ issues to players
> practically every time they ask a question?
This is not a valid point. The overwhelming majority of them are repeats.
No, I'm not actually sure how much would be there if it included only the
unique, profound rulings. But if it turned out not to be a manageable body
of work, I'd say the game had a serious problem. I do not believe that,
however.
Fred
In message <3C783330...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>> >No. You'd just organize them by card or (the generalized ones) stick
>> >them under whatever general heading they belong. It would work fine.
>> >There'd just be more stuff there than there is now.
>>
>> Do you have any idea just how many rulings LSJ issues to players
>> practically every time they ask a question?>
>This is not a valid point. The overwhelming majority of them are repeats.
But a number, indeed the vast majority from where I stand, are phrased
differently which can be sufficient to make them distinct.
[ quoted text not captured ]