4 Questions

OK, so here they are: 1. Bianca have inferior potence and +1handdamage. She plays "Torn Signpost". Does she now have 2-handdamage or 3-handdamage? 2. I play "Forced Awakening" and "Deflection" to deflect a bleed. Do I burn a blood because I have failed to block? 3. Is "Aching Beauty" cumulative? 4. Is Sabbat vampires considered to be non-camarilla (closed session, protect thine own, ....)? Thanks in advance. // Robert

> 1. Bianca has inferior potence and +1handdamage. She plays "Torn Signpost". > Does she now have 2-handdamage or 3-handdamage? 2 hand damage. Signpost sets damage to 2. > 2. I play "Forced Awakening" and "Deflection" to deflect a bleed. Do I burn > a blood because I have failed to block? In this instance fail is meant in the more general sense of the word. Ie you burn 2 blood. > 3. Is "Aching Beauty" cumulative? Yes. > 4. Is Sabbat vampires considered to be non-camarilla (closed session, > protect thine own, ....)? Yes. Jag var bara tvungen...hehe. Vi får väl se vad LSJ säger (jag är inte hel säker på alla frågorna). Robert

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:09:00 +0100, Robert Ekvall <rek...@hem.passagen.se> said: >> 1. Bianca has inferior potence and +1handdamage. She plays "Torn Signpost". >> Does she now have 2-handdamage or 3-handdamage? Robert> 2 hand damage. Signpost sets damage to 2. Ummm, actually Bianca gets 3 hand damage IMHO. Torn Signpost sets it to 2, and Bianca's +1 is on top of that. //Petri

Doktorow/Björklund wrote: > > OK, so here they are: > 1. Bianca have inferior potence and +1handdamage. She plays "Torn Signpost". > Does she now have 2-handdamage or 3-handdamage? Torn Signpost sets her strength (handdamge) to 2. Her card text still adds one to her strength, so her net strength is 3. > 2. I play "Forced Awakening" and "Deflection" to deflect a bleed. Do I burn > a blood because > I have failed to block? Yes. > 3. Is "Aching Beauty" cumulative? Yes. > 4. Is Sabbat vampires considered to be non-camarilla (closed session, > protect thine own, ....)? Yes. See the revised rulebook. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

Wait a minute....Yes, yes, yes and NO..... for the simple reason that non-camarilla vampires are set as such inthe card text, while that is not necessarily the way it should be (sabbat is as non-camarilla as it gets) the text for closed session etc. should not read -- vampires that are not in the camarilla -- it reads "non-camarilla" as a designation reserved for Ravnos, Giovanni, Settite and Assamitte

kingj...@aol.com (KingJohann) wrote: > Wait a minute....Yes, yes, yes and NO..... for the simple reason that ? Without the benfit of quoted context, such a statement carries little meaning. > non-camarilla vampires are set as such inthe card text, while that is not > necessarily the way it should be (sabbat is as non-camarilla as it gets) the > text for closed session etc. should not read -- vampires that are not in the > camarilla -- it reads "non-camarilla" as a designation reserved for Ravnos, > Giovanni, Settite and Assamitte "Non-Camarilla" means "not in the Camarilla". The term includes both the Independent clans (Ravnos, Giovanni, Followers of Set, and Assamites) as well as the Sabbat clans. See the revised rulebook for further clarification. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own