LSJ#
On VTES-L, VampChamp1 <VampC...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> I read in one of the rulings that Mask could let an inner circle member play
> atonement, but doesn't this conflict rather sharply with minions not being
> able to have cards that they could not play? Bottom line is, how could an 11
> vampire have atonement?
The difference between a requirement (capacity < X) and a restriction.
Mask can be used to get around a requirement, but not a restriction.
> And on the mask issue, if Harrod bleeds with return to Innocence, and dimple
> takes over with mask, what happens? How much is the bleed? Who pays? Who's
> burned?
Dimple continues. If the action is unblocked, then dimple pays four
blood (the cost of the action). If he cannot, the action fizzles (and
no one is burned).
If he pays the cost, then the bleed is for 1+X, where X is Dimple's
capacity, and then Dimple is burned.
[Weekly Rulings, Volume 1, from Jon Wilkie, 11-13-96: ]
> QUESTION: Anson has only one blood left. He does a bleed action with
> Legal Manipulations for +2 bleed. Before a block is announced the guy
> with Anson decides to play Aire of Elation to get rid of the card. What
> happens now since Anson has to pay for the Aire of Elation immediately and
> can no longer pay for the Legal Manip.
>
> ANSWER: The action continues, but has no effect.
>
> Does this make sense? How can he play Aire of elation without the blood to
> pay for it?
He has the blood to pay for it: he has one blood. Once he pays for it,
he has zero blood. Then (if the action remains unblocked), Anson must
pay the cost of the action: 1 blood. Since he cannot (he now has zero
blood), the action fizzles.
> QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
> the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
> occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
>
> ANSWER: No.
>
> Why can't Rotchreck be used?
It can be. The FAQ you are quoting is in error.
> And for that matter, what was the final ruling
> on the playing of Rotschreck? The wording is rather clear.
Clear or not, the card has errata, which is at least as clear:
"Play on a vampire that attempts to inflict aggravated damage on his
opponent in combat. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor.
During the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card
instead of untapping the vampire."
> QUESTION: b) Can Pulled fangs affect a non-vampire minion using
> aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since
> non-vampire minions can't go to torpor...
>
> ANSWER: You can play it on a non-vampire, but it does nothing...
>
> How can pulled fangs be played on someone with no fangs?!?
Again, the FAQ is in error.
It cannot be, but only because the criterion on the card has not
been met. You cannot inflict more damage on the opposing vampire
if there is no opposing vampire, so you cannot play Pulled Fangs.
> QUESTION: Two questions that came to mind after reading the rules were,
> firstly, what's the story with the section about running out of cards and
> withdrawing from the game? Is that supposed to be a Sabbat-only rules
> change, something to use when playing with any cards from Sabbat, or just
> a suggestion of another way to play the endgame?
>
> ANSWER: It's a total rules change, as the old way of withdrawing blew
> chunks (this is not a direct rules team quote).
>
> What rules change? Can someone elaborate on this?
Sabbat optional rule: When a Methuselah begins her untap phase with
fewer cards in her hand than her hand capacity due to having exhausted
her library, then she automatically and instantly withdraws. No
victory point is awarded.
Note: this rule is not used in DCI tournaments.
> More than one (Pulled fangs) may be played on a Vampire in the same round.
>
> All rules mongering aside, how?!? The card is already plural? How many fangs> does this mother have? Also, if a vampire already had'em pulled (ie. already
> has one on), how can you go and pull 'em again?!?
Card text. This is the same as using a Flak Jacket to prevent the
damage done by Rutor's Hand. It makes no sense from a Game World
perspective, but it is perfectly legal by card text (and errata,
in the case of Rutor's Hand).
> If Ulugh Beg plays Theft of V against Beast while at full capacity does he
> wind up at full, having used the blood to heal Beast's 2 HD, or is he at 8
> because it exceeded his capacity?
8.
Breakdown:
Ulugh steals two blood, Beast inflicts two damage.
a. apply strikes
Ulugh goes to 12, the excess drains off (as always), leaving
him at 10. And he now has two damage to worry about.
Beast loses two blood (to Ulugh).
b. Heal damage
Ulugh burns two blood to heal the two damage Beast inflicted.
He is now at 8 blood.
> \025All minion cards on the vampire become uncontrolled as well, and are immune
> to contesting or affects like Arson or Cryptic Mission. These cards come back
> into play when the vampire does. [RTR\040960112] \025All master cards on the vampire
> are still controlled and could be contested.
> Passive effects remain in effect (Disciplines, e.g.) while active effects
> cannot be used (Blood Doll, e.g.) [RTR\040960112]
>
> Does this seem contradictory to anyone else? If a unique location card
> controlled by that minion is now considered uncontestable, why should a
> unique master? If Lyndhurst isn't contested, why should the rack be?
The Rack is not on the vampire, it just names a vampire.
But, more to the point, Master cards are different from Minion cards.
> Also, it says that use of equipment is optional, but Invereray counts toward
> Justicar retribution. I can accept this, but then laptops must be counted as
> well. Saying "I can choose not to use my laptop" suring a JR vote is no more
> valid logically than saying "I can choose not to use my .44" during a peace
> treaty vote.
Invererary is a location, not equipment.
The .44 is still burned whether you use it or not during a Peace
Treaty vote (card text on Peace Treaty).
> You cannot pay part of a cost. If, between the time a card is played and the
> time the cost is paid, you no longer can pay the cost, then no cost is paid
> and the card is burned without effect.
>
> Does this mean, I can let smudge with only one blood play blood bond just to
> get it out of my hand? Does this also mean, since it has no effect that he is> not even tapped?!?
No. You cannot play a card whose cost you cannot pay.
But, as in the example of Anson and Aire of Elation above, it
could be that when the time comes to pay the cost, you are no
longer able to. In sucha case, no cost is paid for the action
and the action fizzles.
The acting minion would still be tapped, since tapping is not an
effect of the action, but rather an event that occurs when any
action is started (rulebook).
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team