Ally Questions

I played a couple of nice games yesterday, and there happened to be two ally-based decks at the table. These questions came up: Ambrosius v. Donal: Donal's ability specifically says vampire, so no trouble there. Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary: I said he has no blood to burn and as such ignores the effect, the other player cited blood/life equivalency. LSJ? Renegade Garou v. Bonecraft: Garou has no blood to burn, so cannot get rid of Bonecraft, correct? Ambrosius v. Archon: Same as Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary? Please to enlighten, gomi

In article <71m0nf$jfl$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei <go...@best.com> wrote: >Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary: I said he has no blood to burn and > as such ignores the effect, the other > player cited blood/life equivalency. LSJ? You're right: >From: LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> >Subject: VTES Clarifications Compilation >Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:48:44 -0800 > >Current as of: 03 March 1998 >Allies > > * Ignore all "burn blood" effects entirely. :A01: > [TOM 960326] -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

> Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary: I said he has no blood to burn and > as such ignores the effect, the other > player cited blood/life equivalency. LSJ? Card Title: Camarilla Exemplary Card Text: Political Card-Worth 1 Vote Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a controlled vampire. Successful vote means that for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block the vampire burns 1 blood. Same as Donal. > Renegade Garou v. Bonecraft: Garou has no blood to burn, so cannot get > rid of Bonecraft, correct? Hrm. Interesting idea. > Ambrosius v. Archon: Same as Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary? The wording is different. "...anyone attempting to block the Archon burns 1 blood." But according to errata, allies ignore burning blood effects. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > I played a couple of nice games yesterday, and there happened to be > two ally-based decks at the table. These questions came up: > > Ambrosius v. Donal: Donal's ability specifically says vampire, so no trouble > there. Fine so far. > Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary: I said he has no blood to burn and > as such ignores the effect, the other > player cited blood/life equivalency. LSJ? Camarilla Exemplary also specifies "vampire", so no trouble there, either: Successful vote means that for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block the vampire burns 1 blood. But, as Justin Fang noted in his follow-up, allies would ignore the burn blood effect under the Jyhad wording of this card, as they do for all effects that require them to burn blood. > Renegade Garou v. Bonecraft: Garou has no blood to burn, so cannot get > rid of Bonecraft, correct? Correct. > Ambrosius v. Archon: Same as Ambrosius v. Camarilla Exemplary? Archon lacks the "vampire" wording of the VTES Camarilla Exemplary, so the ally actually ignores the effect in this case (rather than the effect not being applicable at all - like the Camarilla Exemplary case). -- 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

What exactly can be done to an ally when in combat with a vampire under the distressing influences of "memories of mortality"? Can the vampire burn the ally using "blood to water" or "entombment" since it isn't damage? Can the vampires (for example murder of crows) damage the ally? Can a "ghoul retainer" damage the ally since it's cost is paid by the meth? And so on. Grateful for any answers. LSJ? (I've got a garou deck going in JOL right now so I could use the answers) Robert

Robert Ekvall <rek...@hem.passagen.se> wrote: > What exactly can be done to an ally when in combat with a vampire under > the distressing influences of "memories of mortality"? Anything that can be done by the same vampire when not under the influences of memories of mortality. The only difference is that "any damage the vampire inflicts on [the ally] is reduced to 0". > Can the vampire burn the ally using "blood to water" or "entombment" > since it isn't damage? Yes. > Can the vampire['s retainers] (for example murder of crows) damage the ally? Yes. Damage from retainers will not be reduced to zero since it is not inflicted by the vampire. Similarly, other forms of "environmental" damage will also not be reduced. > Can a "ghoul retainer" damage the ally [...] Yes, as above. > [...] since it's cost is paid by the meth? The cost and who pays it have nothing to do with the situation. [ quoted text not captured ]