I have just built a deck in which one of the tricks is to play Illusions of
the Kindred, then any of trap/crows, horrid reality (for an assault rifle).
In the event that the Illusionary vampire sends the other to torpor (its
worked outstandingly well thus far) can the Illusionary vampire play
Amaranth to diablerize? I have this programmed in, but wanted to make sure
it was "safe" before refining the deck further. I assume the original
Ravnos who played Illusions of the Kindred (as they are not in combat) is
safe from the resulting blood hunt.
Thanks in advance.
In message <cVhc7.4329$A3.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Jon Stahler
<sta...@staff.uiuc.edu> writes
>I have just built a deck in which one of the tricks is to play Illusions of
>the Kindred, then any of trap/crows, horrid reality (for an assault rifle).
>In the event that the Illusionary vampire sends the other to torpor (its
>worked outstandingly well thus far) can the Illusionary vampire play
>Amaranth to diablerize?
Yes. Amaranth is played during combat, so the IotK vampire is still
around to play it - and he's a normal vampire, by all of the rules,
until he disappears.
> I have this programmed in, but wanted to make sure
>it was "safe" before refining the deck further. I assume the original
>Ravnos who played Illusions of the Kindred (as they are not in combat) is
>safe from the resulting blood hunt.
Sure. They didn't commit the diablerie.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6
Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <cVhc7.4329$A3.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Jon Stahler
> <sta...@staff.uiuc.edu> writes
> >I have just built a deck in which one of the tricks is to play Illusions of
> >the Kindred, then any of trap/crows, horrid reality (for an assault rifle).
> >In the event that the Illusionary vampire sends the other to torpor (its
> >worked outstandingly well thus far) can the Illusionary vampire play
> >Amaranth to diablerize?
>
> Yes. Amaranth is played during combat, so the IotK vampire is still
> around to play it - and he's a normal vampire, by all of the rules,
> until he disappears.
>
> > I have this programmed in, but wanted to make sure
> >it was "safe" before refining the deck further. I assume the original
> >Ravnos who played Illusions of the Kindred (as they are not in combat) is
> >safe from the resulting blood hunt.
>
> Sure. They didn't commit the diablerie.
Correct on both counts.
--
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:3B71E179...@white-wolf.com...
> James Coupe wrote:
> >
> > In message <cVhc7.4329$A3.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Jon Stahler
> > <sta...@staff.uiuc.edu> writes
> > >I have just built a deck in which one of the tricks is to play
Illusions of
> > >the Kindred, then any of trap/crows, horrid reality (for an assault
rifle).
> > >In the event that the Illusionary vampire sends the other to torpor
(its
> > >worked outstandingly well thus far) can the Illusionary vampire play
> > >Amaranth to diablerize?
> >
> > Yes. Amaranth is played during combat, so the IotK vampire is still
> > around to play it - and he's a normal vampire, by all of the rules,
> > until he disappears.
> >
> > > I have this programmed in, but wanted to make sure
> > >it was "safe" before refining the deck further. I assume the original
> > >Ravnos who played Illusions of the Kindred (as they are not in combat)
is
> > >safe from the resulting blood hunt.
> >
> > Sure. They didn't commit the diablerie.
>
> Correct on both counts.
>
In the above case, does the bloodhunt simply fail due too no 'target' or
does the vamp get burned before he dissapears. I remember the errata about
where to put the card when it's burned in combat.
In message <%VAc7.2775$ye.6...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen
rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes
>In the above case, does the bloodhunt simply fail due too no 'target' or
>does the vamp get burned before he dissapears. I remember the errata about
>where to put the card when it's burned in combat.
Have a read of:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8e6ng5%24r2h%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
[LSJ 20002406]
This specifically states:
"The Blood Hunt is conducted at the time of diablerie (during the
resolution of a Diablerie action, for instance)."
Since the diablerie is in combat (else the IotK vampire couldn't commit
it), the Blood Hunt must be too - so the IotK vampire is still around to
be targeted by it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
jeroen rombouts wrote:
> > > In message <cVhc7.4329$A3.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Jon Stahler
> > > <sta...@staff.uiuc.edu> writes
> > > >I have just built a deck in which one of the tricks is to play
> Illusions of
> > > >the Kindred, then any of trap/crows, horrid reality (for an assault
> rifle).
> > > >In the event that the Illusionary vampire sends the other to torpor
> (its
> > > >worked outstandingly well thus far) can the Illusionary vampire play
> > > >Amaranth to diablerize?> In the above case, does the bloodhunt simply fail due too no 'target' or> does the vamp get burned before he dissapears. I remember the errata about
> where to put the card when it's burned in combat.
The Blood Hunt occurs after combat.
By that time, there's no vampire on which to call it, so it isn't called.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > In the above case, does the bloodhunt simply fail due too no 'target' or
> > does the vamp get burned before he dissapears. I remember the errata
about
> > where to put the card when it's burned in combat.
>
> The Blood Hunt occurs after combat.
> By that time, there's no vampire on which to call it, so it isn't called.
>
Now I'm really confused. I know you are the netrep, but James said exactely
the opposite by quoting you. (see his post)
Jeroen
James Coupe wrote:
> Since the diablerie is in combat (else the IotK vampire couldn't commit
> it), the Blood Hunt must be too - so the IotK vampire is still around to
> be targeted by it.
The blood hunt comes after. The diablerie ends combat (since it results
in one of the combatants being no longer ready).
This is also the basis for "diablerist cannot play Reform Body".
If the blood hunt happened in combat (which it doesn't), then he could.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
>
> James Coupe wrote:
> > Since the diablerie is in combat (else the IotK vampire couldn't commit
> > it), the Blood Hunt must be too - so the IotK vampire is still around to
> > be targeted by it.
>
> The blood hunt comes after. The diablerie ends combat (since it results
> in one of the combatants being no longer ready).
>
> This is also the basis for "diablerist cannot play Reform Body".
> If the blood hunt happened in combat (which it doesn't), then he could.
Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
vampire is removed from the game.
Sorry. I sould check references provided before whipping off counters.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
>diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
>vampire is removed from the game.
>
>Sorry. I sould check references provided before whipping off counters.
I've been following this thread and now I'm a bit confused.
So can you use Reform Body (as a combat card) after being burned in a Blood
Hunt after an Amaranth?
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> >Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
> >diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
> >vampire is removed from the game.
> >
> >Sorry. I sould check references provided before whipping off counters.
>
> I've been following this thread and now I'm a bit confused.
Sorry about that.
> So can you use Reform Body (as a combat card) after being burned in a Blood
> Hunt after an Amaranth?
No. See the body of the message James cited for an extended explanation
that should make that clear.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B72E65E...@white-wolf.com...
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> >
> > >Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
> > >diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
> > >vampire is removed from the game.
> > >
<snip>
> > So can you use Reform Body (as a combat card) after being burned in a
Blood
> > Hunt after an Amaranth?
>
> No. See the body of the message James cited for an extended explanation
> that should make that clear.
>
But after an Illusionary vamp has been burned due to a Blood Hunt, after
playing Amaranth (and possibly Ritual of the Bitter Rose ...SCARY!), you can
put the vamp into your Ash Heap as opposed to being removed from the game.
Right?
the ruling:
If the illusionary vampire is burned in combat (ending combat), the cting
Methuselah chooses whether he is sent to the ash heap or removed from the
game. [RTR 20001020]
BTW, the 'cting' is not my spelling, it's on WW's site like this.
This has given me a new deck idea, but it's hard to filter through all the
moving parts. A new version of the Ian Forestal deck (no vamps with chi -
nec).
Jeroen
In message <GyDc7.3048$ye.7...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen
rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes
>But after an Illusionary vamp has been burned due to a Blood Hunt, after
>playing Amaranth (and possibly Ritual of the Bitter Rose ...SCARY!), you can
>put the vamp into your Ash Heap as opposed to being removed from the game.
>Right?
>
>the ruling:
>If the illusionary vampire is burned in combat (ending combat), the cting
>Methuselah chooses whether he is sent to the ash heap or removed from the
>game. [RTR 20001020]
Right, as per the ruling you cite.
>This has given me a new deck idea, but it's hard to filter through all the
>moving parts. A new version of the Ian Forestal deck (no vamps with chi -
>nec).
Yes, I was quite disappointed there was no-one with "nec" amongst the
Ravnos.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> In message <GyDc7.3048$ye.7...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen
> rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes>> But after an Illusionary vamp has been burned due to a Blood Hunt, after
>> playing Amaranth (and possibly Ritual of the Bitter Rose ...SCARY!), you can
>> put the vamp into your Ash Heap as opposed to being removed from the game.
>> Right?
Not to mention that the munch-ee is now a vampire "controlled by another
Methuselah that has been burned since your last turn!" Woohoo! Send in the
Demons!
>> the ruling:
>> If the illusionary vampire is burned in combat (ending combat), the cting
>> Methuselah chooses whether he is sent to the ash heap or removed from the
>> game. [RTR 20001020]>
> Right, as per the ruling you cite.
>>> This has given me a new deck idea, but it's hard to filter through all the
>> moving parts. A new version of the Ian Forestal deck (no vamps with chi -
>> nec).>
> Yes, I was quite disappointed there was no-one with "nec" amongst the
> Ravnos.
Not much Nec out of clan at all...however, Daemonic Possession, at
least, is still a good card at inferior.
While having lots of possible moving parts, this is turning into one
nasty sounding deck. =)
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:B7988D98.6508%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu...
>
>
> > In message <GyDc7.3048$ye.7...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen
> > rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes
> >> But after an Illusionary vamp has been burned due to a Blood Hunt,
after
> >> playing Amaranth (and possibly Ritual of the Bitter Rose ...SCARY!),
you can
> >> put the vamp into your Ash Heap as opposed to being removed from the
game.
> >> Right?
>
> Not to mention that the munch-ee is now a vampire "controlled by
another
> Methuselah that has been burned since your last turn!" Woohoo! Send in
the
> Demons!
>
> >> the ruling:
> >> If the illusionary vampire is burned in combat (ending combat), the
cting
> >> Methuselah chooses whether he is sent to the ash heap or removed from
the
> >> game. [RTR 20001020]
> >
> > Right, as per the ruling you cite.
Another problem is to get a succesful blood hunt. After the first, that is
<EG>
> >
> >> This has given me a new deck idea, but it's hard to filter through all
the
> >> moving parts. A new version of the Ian Forestal deck (no vamps with
chi -
> >> nec).
> >
> > Yes, I was quite disappointed there was no-one with "nec" amongst the
> > Ravnos.
>
> Not much Nec out of clan at all...however, Daemonic Possession, at
> least, is still a good card at inferior.
Maybe Sargon Fragment and Infernal Pact can help? Or Akhenaten, The Sun
Pharaoh (Mummy) who can use basic nec.
>
> While having lots of possible moving parts, this is turning into one
> nasty sounding deck. =)
>
I don't think it will be able to use the Blood Hunt - Possession trick more
than once. But with Daemonic Possession, ....
Jeroen
Trying to get his mind awake
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B72E65E...@white-wolf.com>...
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> >
> > >Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
> > >diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
> > >vampire is removed from the game.
> > >
> > >Sorry. I sould check references provided before whipping off counters.
> >
> > I've been following this thread and now I'm a bit confused.
>
> Sorry about that.
>
> > So can you use Reform Body (as a combat card) after being burned in a Blood
> > Hunt after an Amaranth?
>
> No. See the body of the message James cited for an extended explanation
> that should make that clear.
Ok. I read that. it didn't make it clear. I've missed obvious stuff
before, so maybe i have done it again. if i have, i apologise. The
post cited by James made it clear that i couldn't play reform body as
a reaction card. however, the question was whether it could be played
as a combat card.
so, let's allocate effects to points in time, which we shall number,
using the set of positive integers, starting at 1, and try and work
out where i have gone wrong....
time 1: opposing vampire in combat is on it's way to torpor.
2: amaranth is played, and resolved.
3: blood hunt is called and the referendum passes.
4: diablerist is burned.
5: action over.
now, apparently time 4 is still inside combat, otherwise there would
be no illusionary vampire anymore in the illusionary vampire case.
so, if at time 4 there is still a combat, why could Reform Body not be
played as a Combat card?
The diablerist is in combat. she is being burned. she has vic. she
should be able to play reform body.
if, at time 4, the combat is actually over, then there would, in the
illusionary case, be no illusionary vampire as it should have been
removed from the game when the combat ended.
also, i beleive that time 4 is actually part of the resolution of time
3.
and, also, that time 3 is part of the resolution of time 2.
and if a combat card is being played at time 2, surely it can be
played at time 4?
thanks, and sorry for being obtuse, but it just doesn't seem
_intuitive_[A].
salem.
[A] Word of the Month.
salem christ wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Halcyan 2 wrote:> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > >Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
> > > >diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
> > > >vampire is removed from the game.
> > > >
> > > >Sorry. I sould check references provided before whipping off counters.
> > >
> > > I've been following this thread and now I'm a bit confused.
> >
> > Sorry about that.
> >
> > > So can you use Reform Body (as a combat card) after being burned in a Blood
> > > Hunt after an Amaranth?
> >
> > No. See the body of the message James cited for an extended explanation
> > that should make that clear.
>
> Ok. I read that. it didn't make it clear. I've missed obvious stuff
> before, so maybe i have done it again. if i have, i apologise. The
> post cited by James made it clear that i couldn't play reform body as
> a reaction card. however, the question was whether it could be played
> as a combat card.
And the answer is "no" for the same reason - Blood Hunt is not part of
the combat in the same way that it is not part of the action - it is
its own little isolated event.
> so, let's allocate effects to points in time, which we shall number,
> using the set of positive integers, starting at 1, and try and work
> out where i have gone wrong....
>
> time 1: opposing vampire in combat is on it's way to torpor.
> 2: amaranth is played, and resolved.
> 3: blood hunt is called and the referendum passes.
> 4: diablerist is burned.
> 5: action over.
>
> now, apparently time 4 is still inside combat, otherwise there would
> be no illusionary vampire anymore in the illusionary vampire case.
4 occurs before the combat is over, yes. It occurs within 3, which
occurs within 2.
> so, if at time 4 there is still a combat, why could Reform Body not be
> played as a Combat card?
You cannot play combat cards in a blood hunt because *that* (the
blood hunt) is not combat - even though there is a combat around
somewhere (that has been suspended for the handling of the diablerie
and blood hunt).
This is the same reason as why you cannot play action modifiers in
the blood hunt referendum even though there's an action going on
somewhere. The blood hunt is not an action. Likewise it is not combat.
It is an event isolated from the rest of the events going on
around it.
> The diablerist is in combat. she is being burned. she has vic. she
> should be able to play reform body.
The diablerist has presence. The diablerist is acting. The diablerist
should be able to play Bewitching Oration in the Blood Hunt referendum.
Both these statements appear valid, given one interpretation of
the mechanics of the blood hunt. But the mechanics have been ruled
to be otherwise.
> if, at time 4, the combat is actually over, then there would, in the
> illusionary case, be no illusionary vampire as it should have been
> removed from the game when the combat ended.
Just as in the action case, if the action were actually over, then
there would be no action to modify with Freak Drive afterward.
> also, i beleive that time 4 is actually part of the resolution of time
> 3.
> and, also, that time 3 is part of the resolution of time 2.
Correct.
> and if a combat card is being played at time 2, surely it can be
> played at time 4?
No.
> thanks, and sorry for being obtuse, but it just doesn't seem
> _intuitive_[A].
Agreed, as in the cited article.
[ quoted text not captured ]