Rotschreck isn't a very good defensive card, I agree. The reason
for that is that it is a very powerfull offensive card which makes
Gangrel decks much more effective. If you have a Gangrel deck, stick
in a bunch of these cards.
It can be played to advantage any time you are in a position to
use an aggravated damage strike for 1 point of damage. This would
usually be done with Claws of the Damned (or two of them to get to
close range vs. a gun-wielder. There's no limit on combat cards.)
o It effectively makes the victim lose a turn in addition to torpor.
o It prevents your vampire from taking any damage.
o It counters the effect of any and all defensive cards. This
includes all Fortitude cards, Flak Vests, dodges and Majesty.
o It can be used on your turn.
First some hand-waving about who it affects. From the card:
"Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
vampire... Combat ends before damage is resolved. That vampire is put
in torpor, tapped. ..."
It shows a vampire cringing in fear from a sunny window. Now, from
Damn Operation we know that this is artistic license, since vampires
go abroad at night, but the card obviously involves fear. It isn't a
big stretch to say that the vampire about to take agravated damage
suddenly gets afraid and acts like the vampire in the picture. I guess
it runs away and becomes catatonic for a turn.
To interpret this as affecting the vampire with the aggravated
damage weapon, you not only have to change the card in two places,
but have to invent a really strange rational for what happens.
Why I say it can do all those things:
#1. A point of aggravated damage sends the victim to torpor. This card
send it to torpor and makes it stay tapped, so enchances a 1-point
aggravated attack
#2. OK, it won't stop the Wolf Companion, but it goes before first
strike or anything else.
#3. Since you have to play this card before damage is assigned, you
won't so much as negate fortitude cards as you'll prevent someone
from playing them.
For Majesty, I read the rules carefully. Suppose the weasel you're
blocking plays Majesty. This card stops combat "before any damage is
dealt or any strike's effects take place." You still go ahead and choose
hands and play Claws of the Damned.
Now you go to resolve strike. At this point you play Rotschreck
which also takes effect before damage is resolved. The two cases I can
see are that Rotschreck takes precedence, since it was played last, or
both take effect (allowing the vampire to pay a point of blood to
untap while in torpor.)
Either way, Rotschreck lets you make one Majestic vampire pay
for trying to attack you.
#4. The card says when it can be used, which may occur during your turn.
Even thought the rules say differently, this seems like a fairly
clear case of a card overruling a rule. The card only says it can
be used "when" the situation occurs and not "anytime" it happens,
so the case could be stronger.
My opinion is that there isn't a rule at all about using out-of-turn
cards not on your turn, but that the rules are merely explaining how
these work and most out-of-turn cards work that way.
--
In <owen.780010759@las3.iastate.edu>, owen@iastate.edu (Owen P Reynolds) writes:
> Rotschreck isn't a very good defensive card, I agree. The reason
I don't know about that. My current score:
6: in torpor (3 diablerized - 1 by Amaranth)
0: discarded.
1: no opportunity to use.
>o It can be used on your turn.
>
EEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHH! No, but thank you for playing. Master: out of turn.
Can't be played on your turn. (Unless of course that ruling has changed
but I haven't read it yet.)
> First some hand-waving about who it affects. From the card:
>
> "Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
>vampire... Combat ends before damage is resolved. That vampire is put
>in torpor, tapped. ..."
>
> It shows a vampire cringing in fear from a sunny window. Now, from
>Damn Operation we know that this is artistic license, since vampires
>go abroad at night, but the card obviously involves fear. It isn't a
>big stretch to say that the vampire about to take agravated damage
Rotschreck is a uncontrollable fear of sunlight/fire. (This is, of
course, a VtM definition. Some might call it Response to Aggr. Damage.) ;)
Aggravated damage from Walk of Flame or Flame Throwers tends to
support your argument, but most (if not all) out-of-turn masters
are defensive cards, which weakens your argument.
>>>>#3. Since you have to play this card before damage is assigned, you
> won't so much as negate fortitude cards as you'll prevent someone
> from playing them.
>
> For Majesty, I read the rules carefully. Suppose the weasel you're
>blocking plays Majesty. This card stops combat "before any damage is
>dealt or any strike's effects take place." You still go ahead and choose
>hands and play Claws of the Damned.
> Now you go to resolve strike. At this point you play Rotschreck
No, you don't. If the acting minion chooses "combat ends" as
a strike, it's over. The blocker does not even get to drop a card.
>
>#4. The card says when it can be used, which may occur during your turn.
> Even thought the rules say differently, this seems like a fairly
> clear case of a card overruling a rule. The card only says it can
> be used "when" the situation occurs and not "anytime" it happens,
> so the case could be stronger.
You'll find that it's additive condition, not an override.
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
Owen P Reynolds (owen@iastate.edu) wrote:
> >>o It can be used on your turn.
> >>
> >Master: out of turn.
> >Can't be played on your turn. (Unless of course that ruling has
changed
> > but I haven't read it yet.)> Card text overides rules. I hope we can all agree that an
out-of-turn master can be played on your turn if it says
> it can be. My oppinion is that "when a minion attempts to use
> aggravated damage against a vampire" is a sufficient description
> of when you use it that it can be used whenever that happens, on
> your turn or not.
Well...that would seem to make it pointless for a difference between
action modifiers and reactions. Many reaction cards say "only usable
during a political action", and if we are to use your logic for the
out-of-turn cards, then that follows for the reaction cards as well.
Forget the rules boys...play your cards whenever you want...regardless
of rules.
Oh, by the way...I assume that card text limitations are more like
sub-limitations, or additional limitations. A reaction card must
follow both the "not on your turn" rule from the rule-book, and also
the "only during a political action" on the card. An out-of-turn card
must follow the "not on your turn" from the rule-book, and any
additional conditions on the card, such as:
may be used when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage...
Mike Kraack
stu1068@discover.wright.edu
>> Card text overides rules. I hope we can all agree that an
>> out-of-turn master can be played on your turn if it says
>> it can be. My oppinion is that "when a minion attempts to use
>> aggravated damage against a vampire" is a sufficient description
>> of when you use it that it can be used whenever that happens, on
>> your turn or not.>Well...that would seem to make it pointless for a difference between
>action modifiers and reactions. Many reaction cards say "only usable
>during a political action", and if we are to use your logic for the
>out-of-turn cards, then that follows for the reaction cards as well.
First off, I'd like to be clear that my main point in even
posting on this thread is to get an explanation about why some
people think Rotschreck is played on a vampire _using_ aggravated
damage.
I don't mind discussion my opinions about the "not on your
turn" pseudo-rule, but it's not what I really want to hear about.
>Oh, by the way...I assume that card text limitations are more like
>sub-limitations, or additional limitations. A reaction card must
>follow both the "not on your turn" rule from the rule-book, and also
>the "only during a political action" on the card. An out-of-turn card
>must follow the "not on your turn" from the rule-book, and any
>additional conditions on the card, such as:
>may be used when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage...
I agree, but I think you're stretching the point. Dread Gaze and
Bewitching Oration are the exact same card except for the <> and <-
symbols on them, so it's obvious one is used by the acting minion only
and one is a reaction. The distinction between reaction and action
modifier is important for several cards.
For out-of-turn cards, as I said before, the "not during your turn"
phrase, which I don't think even is a rule, but a not-completely
accurate remark, could easily be ignored and it wouldn't change
very much at all. It would make Brujah Frenzy a tiny bit more useful,
and make Rotschreck a decent card for a Gangrel deck (as opposed to
a way to maim any of your predator's minions you manage to block.)
I've tried to post examples of how you can't play by the rules,
since read literally they make no sense, and now we've got the goofy
ruling about Wolf Companion (and I'm still right about Form of Mist
not working with action cards, even though I agree with Tom's
interpretation.)
Just like it was explained that the phrase about _other_ Methuselahs
being able to use Pol ACt cards for votes was just plain written wrong,
I think the out-of-turn rules was just plain written wrong.
--
Owen P Reynolds <owen@iastate.edu> wrote:
>>>o It can be used on your turn.>>Master: out of turn.
>>Can't be played on your turn. (Unless of course that ruling has changed
>>but I haven't read it yet.)> Card text overrides rules. I hope we can all agree that an out-of-turn
>master can be played on your turn if it says it can be. My opinion is that
>"when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a vampire" is a
>sufficient description of when you use it that it can be used whenever
>that happens, on your turn or not.
Sorry, but wrong. An out-of-turn card would only be usable during your
turn if it explicitly said it could be; assuming that it can be used during
your turn "because it makes sense" is reading something into the card
that isn't there. Rotschreck is an out-of-turn card, and doesn't say it
can be used during your turn, so can't be used during your turn.
> That's like saying that most cards starting with the letter 'R'
>aren't very useful, so Rotschreck shouldn't be. The card does what it
>does. If the rules said something like "...out-of-turn cards are played
>to defend yourself when it is not your turn," then you might have a
>point.
The (corrected) rules say you cannot use out-of-turn cards during your turn.
> I just read Beth on the mailing list supporting the way I think
>it should be done. The question was, "what happens if both vampires
>play Majesty?" and her answer was she felt both would have a chance
>to untap.
This is incorrect. When a "combat ends" strike is played, combat ends
right then and there, and wouldn't even progress long enough to let the
other minion declare a strike. So it's impossible to play two Majesties
in the same combat.
(At least, that's how I was taught, and how the rules read IMHO. I will
double check that.)
> It even _should_ be this way. Picking your strike first can be a
>big disadvantage. This shouldn't become an advantage in the case of
>Majesty.
If choosing strike first should never be an advantage, then what about
Blood Rage? After all, it lets the other minion know not to waste its
time striking with a weapon.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <35t7lh$97q@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>When a "combat ends" strike is played, combat ends
>right then and there, and wouldn't even progress long enough to let the
>other minion declare a strike. So it's impossible to play two Majesties
>in the same combat.
Does this apply to Elysium, a non-strike combat ends? I was in combat
with someone with Elysium and wanted to play a Trap card (to get rid of
the card. I was expecting Elysium and needed some intercept). Do I get
to play my trap if and only if I can physically fling the card faster than
he can turn his Elysium sideways?
Arrrggg!!!! I want to know where this stuff about Rotschreck
affecting the vampire _with_ claws comes from and hear it explained
wrt the card! But I'll respond to this instead.
>Sorry, but wrong. An out-of-turn card would only be usable during your
>turn if it explicitly said it could be.
>Rotschreck is an out-of-turn card, and doesn't say it
>can be used during your turn, so can't be used during your turn.
Well, suppose an out-of-turn card said "Play when your acting
minion... ."? It doesn't say "May be played on your turn," but we
can infer it's meant to be played on your turn. Inference _is_ a
part of figuring out how cards work.
The question is, how useless does a card have to be "as written"
before you play by what 90% of people think was meant? Rotschreck isn't
useless, but is much less useful.
>The (corrected) rules say you cannot use out-of-turn cards during your turn.
The corrected rules also say that any Methuselah _except_ the one
calling a vote can use Political Action cards for an extra vote. This
was just bad phrasing, and the "not on your turn" rule looks like even
worse wording. From the corrected rules:
---------
Master cards ... fall under the following subcategories:
...
Locations: Location cards give your vampires certain long-term
advantages in play. ...
Skills: Skill cards are played on your vampires. ...
Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn;
however, if you play an ...
...
Other master cards: Any master cards not explained here have their
effects explained on them.
---------
I've written things this sloppy, but I've always had time to
reread it, realize how bad it was, and fix it. The first sentence
under locations is totally useless. No one is going to read it as a
rule (for example, Backways give a Gangrel a +1 stealth, I think.
The "rule" about locations says they give long-term advantages, so
that Gangrel gains a permanent +1 stealth when Backways is used on
them.)
The paragraph about 'Other master cards' was only written because
they initially promised to list all the subcategories of master cards.
For 'Out-of-turn' they wanted to start with a sentence "Out of turn
cards... " that described them, the same as locations.
It's not a rule -- it's just a product of no time to edit.
I'm still curious why there were corrected rules even before
most people even saw the game.
>> I just read Beth on the mailing list supporting the way I think
>>it should be done. The question was, "what happens if both vampires
>>play Majesty?" and her answer was she felt both would have a chance
>>to untap.>This is incorrect.
Beth really wrote it. She also said it was just her opinion, as well.
>When a "combat ends" strike is played, combat ends
>right then and there, and wouldn't even progress long enough to let the
>other minion declare a strike. So it's impossible to play two Majesties
>in the same combat.
The only real reference I find is in 15.3 under 'Combat Ends:'
It say that "...this ends combat immediately (before any damage is
dealt or any strike's effects take place)." The part in parenthesis
looks like it says what they mean by 'immediately'.
I had hoped to find a clarification that emphasized the 'choose'
part of choose strike, but that section freely switches the idea of
using and selecting a strike (which we know aren't the same in the
case of normal strikes.)
>> It even _should_ be this way. Picking your strike first can be a
>>big disadvantage. This shouldn't become an advantage in the case of
>>Majesty.>If choosing strike first should never be an advantage, then what about
>Blood Rage? After all, it lets the other minion know not to waste its
>time striking with a weapon.
Right -- suppose you have a Chainsaw and I have Blood Rage. If I
go first, you punch me for a point of damage. If I go last, you try
to use your Chainsaw but Blood Rage negates the strike and I take no
damage.
Going first was worse, so was a disadvantage.
--
In <owen.780339225@las3.iastate.edu>, owen@iastate.edu (Owen P Reynolds) writes:
> Arrrggg!!!! I want to know where this stuff about Rotschreck
>affecting the vampire _with_ claws comes from and hear it explained
>wrt the card! But I'll respond to this instead.
>
Hosing the vampire doing the aggravated damage (with respect to the
text on the card): It's purely a matter of you think the target is
A and I think it's B. WotC will say ignore the picture. Ignore the
name. Ignore VtM. Therefore, based on vagueness of English, I can
pick either aggravator or aggravatee as the target and argue a
position.
I could step out a little and say Basilia raises her aggro claw to
waste Crusher, but he whips back the curtains letting a a blast of
sunlight catch her in the face sending her home howling. Why bother
it makes a good balancing card for the all-out aggravated damage
deck.
OTHERWISE, why make it a master card? Might as well be a Combat Card.
>>Sorry, but wrong. An out-of-turn card would only be usable during your
>>turn if it explicitly said it could be.
>>Rotschreck is an out-of-turn card, and doesn't say it
>>can be used during your turn, so can't be used during your turn.>
> Well, suppose an out-of-turn card said "Play when your acting
>minion... ."? It doesn't say "May be played on your turn," but we
>can infer it's meant to be played on your turn. Inference _is_ a
>part of figuring out how cards work.
Yes. But it doesn't say that, does it? In fact, none of them say that.
Some of them even go as far as disallowing a Meth do damage his own
vampires (Like Brujah Frenzy - useful for making your predator attack
your prey, but puts one of yours in the fight when down to two players)
Out-of-turn equals not-on-your-turn until the 'Master: play anytime'
cards come out.
>>When a "combat ends" strike is played, combat ends
>>right then and there, and wouldn't even progress long enough to let the
>>other minion declare a strike. So it's impossible to play two Majesties
>>in the same combat.>
> The only real reference I find is in 15.3 under 'Combat Ends:'
>It say that "...this ends combat immediately (before any damage is
>dealt or any strike's effects take place)." The part in parenthesis
>looks like it says what they mean by 'immediately'.
> I had hoped to find a clarification that emphasized the 'choose'
>part of choose strike, but that section freely switches the idea of
>using and selecting a strike (which we know aren't the same in the
>case of normal strikes.)
>>>> It even _should_ be this way. Picking your strike first can be a
>>>big disadvantage. This shouldn't become an advantage in the case of
>>>Majesty.>
I don't see any advantage in being the first to use Majesty. I would
much rather save it until after the opponent has played a mega-damage
attack. Being the acting minion with a blocker with Protean makes me
think, does she have Wolf/Claws/of the Dead or not? Do I bail or sweat
it out.
RM>>You'll find that it's additive condition, not an override.
OR> You're just giving your opinion and not even trying to back it up.
I've discovered that opinions do not need back up. That was, in fact,
a prediction, not a statement of known fact. You will find that
restrictions tend to be additive until an explicit statement of
override is given. No such override is evident here, nor has one
been acknowledged by WotC.
Your view if applied to Major Boon. (Out-of-turn equals 'not during
master phase'). I bleed my prey for one. Drop a Major Boon. Now,
anytime my predator tries to hit me for an enhanced bleed, I can
pass on the benefit to my prey. Stack my deck, and my stealth
bleed predator can win the game for me. I can, in fact, limit him
to 1 pt bleeds...
This becomes a very powerful card, indeed...
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
on a vampire. That vampire...."
Seems pretty clear to me that it gets played on the aggravatee, and not
the aggravator. Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I
have 2 blood, and you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play
Rotschrek, and go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.
--
AGLA | Michael Schmahl (Black-Robe Mage) | M:tG |
d""""b | fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu | () |
Mb dM | fsmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu | () () |
VbdP | Oblivion BBS: (907)479-4751 | ()() |
In article <CwrCt2.6oM@raven.alaska.edu>,
Michael "Black-Robe Mage" Schmahl <fxmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu> wrote:
> Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
> on a vampire. That vampire...."
>
> Seems pretty clear to me that it gets played on the aggravatee, and
> not the aggravator.
I agree. For some reason I can't fathom, some folks think it's unclear.
> Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I have 2 blood, and
> you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play Rotschrek, and
> go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.
Not to mention the obvious use when you've got an untapped potential
blocker who can deal aggrivated damage... (Lucrecia was *going* to
bleed you, but she saw Anson over there with that flamethrower, and
now we can't get her to come out of the basement...)
--
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/
In article <369fmt$95k@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Doug Dejulio <ddj+@pitt.edu> wrote:
>In article <CwrCt2.6oM@raven.alaska.edu>,
>Michael "Black-Robe Mage" Schmahl <fxmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu> wrote:
>>> Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
>> on a vampire. That vampire...."
>>
>> Seems pretty clear to me that it gets played on the aggravatee, and
>> not the aggravator.>
>I agree. For some reason I can't fathom, some folks think it's unclear.
>
Because I still personally feel it's not a 'good defensive card', so if
the aggravatee gets hosed it's useless. But then, there were cards like
Cyclopean Mummy.
>> Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I have 2 blood, and
>> you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play Rotschrek, and
>> go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.>
Skipping your next master phase, vulnerable to diablerie on that same
turn if your attacker still has vampires, vulnerable to everyone else
around the table, and with that vampire out of action for two turns
in the best of circumstances. Sorry, I'll stick a Dodge in my deck...
they're more common anyhow.
>Not to mention the obvious use when you've got an untapped potential
>blocker who can deal aggrivated damage... (Lucrecia was *going* to
>bleed you, but she saw Anson over there with that flamethrower, and
>now we can't get her to come out of the basement...)
>
Uh... what? If the person with the flame thrower is blocking, that
means it's your turn and you can't play the Out-of-Turn master of
Rotschreck, the current asinine contention that 'Out-of-Turn' was
meant to read 'Out-of-Phase' aside. I don't get what you're trying
to do here, or why it's any better than a dodge card, still.
Since the poster called me an ass, I'll try and be as rude as
possible while still imparting information. Of course, this is in
the spirit of the mock-hostile flame...
>>> Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
>>> on a vampire. That vampire...."
>>>
>>> Seems pretty clear to me that it gets played on the aggravatee, and
>>> not the aggravator.>>
>>I agree. For some reason I can't fathom, some folks think it's unclear.
>>> Because I still personally feel it's not a 'good defensive card', so if
> the aggravatee gets hosed it's useless. But then, there were cards like
> Cyclopean Mummy.
Ah...since you are too stupid to see a use for a card even after I
post the uses for it, it should be played the exact opposite as its written.
For any other slow folks, this is how you use Rotschreck:
Block with one of your vampires who can do aggravated damage. If
they can get to close range, consider playing Rotschreck to tap the
defender an extra turn and save yourself from a point of damage. Not great,
but good.
If they have Fortitude or a bulletproof vest, play Rotschreck to send
them to torpor anyway. If they play a dangerous strike card or have a
good weapon, play Rotschreck to cancel it and send them to torpor. If
the play a dodge or Majesty, play Rotschreck to ignore it.
In the latter case, there is no ruling, but Beth and Tom disagree
about how it works, so flip a coin beforehand.
> the current asinine contention that 'Out-of-Turn' was
> meant to read 'Out-of-Phase' aside.
Illiterate slobs aside, anyone can see that "Out-of-turn cards you
play when it is not your turn," is telling you when you _can_ play
out-of-turn cards, not when you can't.
It would have included a "not" or an "only," otherwise. Since it's
not a sentence in the first place, we're all just guessing, anyway.
Why don't you review the "rule" that the Methuselah calling the
vote can't use Pol Act cards for extra votes, in light of the rulebook
and rulings, and then try and defend not allowing out-of-turn cards
on your turn.
In article <reynolds.780779353@stimpy.cs.iastate.edu>,
Owen Reynolds <reynolds@cs.iastate.edu> wrote:
> Since the poster called me an ass, I'll try and be as rude as
>possible while still imparting information. Of course, this is in
>the spirit of the mock-hostile flame...
>>>>> Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
Note I didn't call you an ass; however, the argument you've been
making on Master cards frustrates me. To keep this from degenerating
to a flame war, I apologize for my strong adjective choice... heat
of the moment and all that :)
>> Because I still personally feel it's not a 'good defensive card', so if
>> the aggravatee gets hosed it's useless. But then, there were cards like
>> Cyclopean Mummy.>
> Ah...since you are too stupid to see a use for a card even after I
>post the uses for it, it should be played the exact opposite as its written.
>For any other slow folks, this is how you use Rotschreck:
>
> Block with one of your vampires who can do aggravated damage. If
>they can get to close range, consider playing Rotschreck to tap the
>defender an extra turn and save yourself from a point of damage. Not great,
>but good.
True, I can see that, especially if they have that annoying Kevlar
vest on... I suppose it really depends how much you value your Master
phase... I tend to stick in as few OoT masters as I can because I per-
sonally hate skipping it.
Sorry to make you repeat; but heck, I've had to repeat my own arguments
on the other side of Rotschrek many a time... I sympathize with the annoy-
ance it can cause...
>> the current asinine contention that 'Out-of-Turn' was
>> meant to read 'Out-of-Phase' aside.>
> Illiterate slobs aside, anyone can see that "Out-of-turn cards you
>play when it is not your turn," is telling you when you _can_ play
>out-of-turn cards, not when you can't.
Here's where I start disagreeing with you. You're not only excluding
the possibility of a "can't" but inserting a "can". Yes, it doesn't say
"you only play when...", but it also doesn't say "you can play when..."
In this case the sentence could be interpreted either as a can, telling
you times when you can use it, or a can't, specifying times it's illegal,
or both. I tend to think the third, since I feel it would've been called
an Out-of-Phase master if you could play it any time other than your
master phase. As you have it defined right now these cards suddenly become
'play at any time' because the only time they couldn't be played would
be during the master phase, which in most instances wouldn't matter since
OoT's generally affect minions and such. I truly truly feel the intent
here was to say you can't use these cards on your turn, and in fact neither
I nor anyone I play with ever had any confusion on the sentence, grammatical
or no. It says you play them when it's not your turn. Ergo, if it's my
turn, then I can't. If it's not, then I can.
> Why don't you review the "rule" that the Methuselah calling the
>vote can't use Pol Act cards for extra votes, in light of the rulebook
>and rulings, and then try and defend not allowing out-of-turn cards
>on your turn.
We never had any problems with this, since it's directly contradicted
elsewhere in the rules and so we chose the version that made more sense.
At least, I think that's what happened... regardless, it never became an
issue...
In article <940928.110621.8097@cougar.cc.oxy.edu>,
Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote:
>>> Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I have 2 blood, and
>>> you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play Rotschrek, and
>>> go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.>>> Skipping your next master phase, vulnerable to diablerie on that same
> turn if your attacker still has vampires, vulnerable to everyone else
> around the table, and with that vampire out of action for two turns
> in the best of circumstances. Sorry, I'll stick a Dodge in my deck...
> they're more common anyhow.
A dodge doesn't end combat. Rotscheck does. And having a vampire sent
into torpor by Rotscheck strikes me as far prefereable to having one
killed. (If your opponent chooses to diablerize your Rot'ed vampire, at
least he has to waste another vampire action to do so.)
And who said that a scarcer card should be more powerful than a common,
anyway? Well, who said it this year?
--
Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
Never send money to someone who has the language skills of a rutabaga.
CurtAdams <curtadams@aol.com> wrote:
>>When a "combat ends" strike is played, combat ends
>>right then and there, and wouldn't even progress long enough to let the
>>other minion declare a strike. So it's impossible to play two Majesties
>>in the same combat.>Does this apply to Elysium, a non-strike combat ends? I was in combat
>with someone with Elysium and wanted to play a Trap card (to get rid of
>the card. I was expecting Elysium and needed some intercept). Do I get
>to play my trap if and only if I can physically fling the card faster than
>he can turn his Elysium sideways?
There has been no ruling yet on "slap" conditions such as this, but
the answer will probably be something like: acting player gets to use
action modifiers, then blocking minion, then everyone else. Look for design
team rulings on the subject.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <940928.110621.8097@cougar.cc.oxy.edu>,
Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote:
>In article <369fmt$95k@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>Doug Dejulio <ddj+@pitt.edu> wrote:>>I agree. For some reason I can't fathom, some folks think it's unclear.>
> Because I still personally feel it's not a 'good defensive card', so if
> the aggravatee gets hosed it's useless. But then, there were cards like
> Cyclopean Mummy.
So, let me get this straight.
The *only* reason you're arguing for the other interpretation is that
it's your opinion that using the card according to the text written on
it isn't very useful?
I don't think that's reasonable.
>>Not to mention the obvious use when you've got an untapped potential
>>blocker who can deal aggrivated damage... (Lucrecia was *going* to
>>bleed you, but she saw Anson over there with that flamethrower, and
>>now we can't get her to come out of the basement...)
>>> Uh... what? If the person with the flame thrower is blocking, that
> means it's your turn and you can't play the Out-of-Turn master of
> Rotschreck, the current asinine contention that 'Out-of-Turn' was
> meant to read 'Out-of-Phase' aside. I don't get what you're trying
> to do here, or why it's any better than a dodge card, still.
No. *I'm* the person with the flame thrower. Watch.
It's my Predator's turn. I've got some dinky little vampire with a
flamethrower untapped. She's got some moby 10pt vampire who's full of
blood, and sends it over to bleed me. I block with my dinky little
vampire and playe Roetscheck. Wham! My Predator's 10pt vampire is
now hiding in the basement.
--
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/
In article <36ere3$p65@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Ryan David Simmons <rsimon@umich.edu> wrote:
>Michael "Black-Robe Mage" Schmahl (fxmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu) wrote:
>: Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
>: on a vampire. That vampire...."
>
>: Seems pretty clear to me that it gets played on the aggravatee, and not
>: the aggravator. Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I
>: have 2 blood, and you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play
>: Rotschrek, and go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.
>
>
>You forget that Rotscreck is an out-of turn master card though...
That has nothing to do with it. Why should it?
> It is best used when one of the other Methuselahs is giving aggravated
> damage to one of your predators vampires, and you want to make sure
> that that Methuselah's vampire stays out of commission for longer than
> one turn...
But there's nothing in the text of the card to indicate that you have
this choice!
If you *just* take the text on the card and don't try to read anything
else into it, it's clear that you use it on the vampire receiving
aggrivated damage, not the minion dealing it.
--
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/
Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote:
: CurtAdams <curtadams@aol.com> wrote:
: >>When a "combat ends" strike is played, combat ends
: >>right then and there, and wouldn't even progress long enough to let the
: >>other minion declare a strike. So it's impossible to play two Majesties
: >>in the same combat.
: >Does this apply to Elysium, a non-strike combat ends? I was in combat
: >with someone with Elysium and wanted to play a Trap card (to get rid of
: >the card. I was expecting Elysium and needed some intercept). Do I get
: >to play my trap if and only if I can physically fling the card faster than
: >he can turn his Elysium sideways?: There has been no ruling yet on "slap" conditions such as this, but
: the answer will probably be something like: acting player gets to use
: action modifiers, then blocking minion, then everyone else. Look for design
: team rulings on the subject.: Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
: aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In the case of Elysium, it must be used before the "choose range" combat
phase, and not a any other time (this is why it ain't a Strike: combat
ends, thought it has the same effect). Trap I don't remember when exactly,
maybe only at the "press" phase or at some other specific phase (like
play when choosing strike). If it is the case, then Elysium will
always be played before Trap, and you will never have a chance to play it
then because combat will be ended.
--
Karrde
karrde@step.polymtl.ca
(presently working on a new mail footer...)
Doug Dejulio (ddj+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <36ere3$p65@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: Ryan David Simmons <rsimon@umich.edu> wrote:
: >Michael "Black-Robe Mage" Schmahl (fxmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu) wrote:
: >: Rotschrek says "play when a minion tries to use aggravated damage, ...
: >: on a vampire. That vampire...."
: >
: >: Seems pretty clear to me that it gets played on the aggravatee, and not
: >: the aggravator. Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I
: >: have 2 blood, and you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play
: >: Rotschrek, and go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.
: >
: >
: >You forget that Rotscreck is an out-of turn master card though...: That has nothing to do with it. Why should it?
If you read the rules it says that out-of-turn cards are played when it
is not your turn. If you are blocking then, you can play it. But if you
are attacking you can't because it is your turn.
: > It is best used when one of the other Methuselahs is giving aggravated
: > damage to one of your predators vampires, and you want to make sure
: > that that Methuselah's vampire stays out of commission for longer than
: > one turn...: But there's nothing in the text of the card to indicate that you have
: this choice!: If you *just* take the text on the card and don't try to read anything
: else into it, it's clear that you use it on the vampire receiving
: aggrivated damage, not the minion dealing it.
I agree. I'm on your side, Doug. I know that you play Vampire and
anybody who plays vampire would realize how silly it would be to play
Rotschreck on the vampire who is dealing and not receiving the damage.
Sorry if my words were unclear.
Ryan D. Simmons
rsimon@umich.edu
In article <36i3ag$2hf@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Doug Dejulio <ddj+@pitt.edu> wrote:
>In article <940928.110621.8097@cougar.cc.oxy.edu>,
>Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote:>>In article <369fmt$95k@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>>Doug Dejulio <ddj+@pitt.edu> wrote:>>>I agree. For some reason I can't fathom, some folks think it's unclear.>>
>> Because I still personally feel it's not a 'good defensive card', so if
>> the aggravatee gets hosed it's useless. But then, there were cards like
>> Cyclopean Mummy.>
>So, let me get this straight.
>
>The *only* reason you're arguing for the other interpretation is that
>it's your opinion that using the card according to the text written on
>it isn't very useful?
>
>I don't think that's reasonable.
>
But that's your opinion. Look at what the team ruled on Sudden Reversal.
And the reason I was arguing for the other interpretation was so it would
make some sense to ever use it... now I've been shown examples of how to,
and they appear to be valid... still, I know people who are just as vehe-
mently opposed to your interpretation as you are to theirs. For my own
part, I didn't have any question about the card until Tom declared it was
under dispute by the design team. /Then/ the other interpretation appeared
to make sense, with a few wording changes that /could/ have been overlooked
in the pressured rush to get the game out by Gencon.
Yes, worded as it is, it's clear. The question is, did the designers make
an honest mistake under pressure and put out a card that plays the exact
opposite of what they intended? I can't see why they would be arguing about
it, otherwise. And people calling them morons isn't going to help... maybe
we ought to think about all they got right with VtM and game mechanics in
the short span of time they had before sitting back and condemning them.
In any case, I won't continue the debate... I'll wait for the team to come
up with a final ruling, and when that happens, that's the way it'll be
played. And if it happens to reverse what the card says, I think under their
circumstances, I'll be inclined to give them a bit of a break.
Newsgroups: rec.games.deckmaster
Subject: Re: JYHAD: Final ruling on Rotschreck?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <Cwq17D.BpL@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <369fmt$95k@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <940928.110621.8097@cougar.cc.oxy.edu> <36f3h0$lka@panix2.panix.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <36f3h0$lka@panix2.panix.com>, Kevin Maroney <kjm@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <940928.110621.8097@cougar.cc.oxy.edu>,
>Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote:>>>> Also, it looks to me to be a good defensive card. I have 2 blood, and
>>>> you're about to burn me with 4 aggravated. So I play Rotschrek, and
>>>> go into torpor, but unscathed, and unburnt.>>>>> Skipping your next master phase, vulnerable to diablerie on that same
>> turn if your attacker still has vampires, vulnerable to everyone else
>> around the table, and with that vampire out of action for two turns
>> in the best of circumstances. Sorry, I'll stick a Dodge in my deck...
>> they're more common anyhow.>
>A dodge doesn't end combat. Rotscheck does. And having a vampire sent
>into torpor by Rotscheck strikes me as far prefereable to having one
>killed. (If your opponent chooses to diablerize your Rot'ed vampire, at
>least he has to waste another vampire action to do so.)
>
Unless your attacker has a press, you don't really have to worry...
dodge would prevent you being hit that turn... and if he was using
a Strike card or Wolf's claws for the aggro he might not have another,
which'd be just as good. Anyways, it's a preference like I said.
If you want to put it in your deck, go ahead... I wouldn't, is all.
>And who said that a scarcer card should be more powerful than a common,
>anyway? Well, who said it this year?
Wasn't me, certainly.
: Yes, worded as it is, it's clear. The question is, did the designers make
: an honest mistake under pressure and put out a card that plays the exact
: opposite of what they intended? I can't see why they would be arguing about
: it, otherwise. And people calling them morons isn't going to help... maybe
: we ought to think about all they got right with VtM and game mechanics in
: the short span of time they had before sitting back and condemning them.: In any case, I won't continue the debate... I'll wait for the team to come
: up with a final ruling, and when that happens, that's the way it'll be
: played. And if it happens to reverse what the card says, I think under their
: circumstances, I'll be inclined to give them a bit of a break.
If they wanted to make a card that did the exact opposite of what the
Rotschreck card says then they should have called it something else. Put
it in their next expansion deck, maybe. I suppose that they could change
things around but I would think this might be kind of a travesty to White
Wolf. Perhaps I'm making too big a deal about things and this is a
pretty small matter but as I see it Rotschreck works as it is. It's a
great card to put on one of your predator's vampires who is about to go
into torpor to make sure that vampire STAYS in torpor. Perhaps it's not
useful enough but I can see myself springing it as a surprise. I think a
change of wording is unneeded.
Ryan D. Simmons
rsimon@umich.edu
Frederic Genest <karrde@step.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>In the case of Elysium, it must be used before the "choose range" combat
>phase, and not a any other time (this is why it ain't a Strike: combat
>ends, thought it has the same effect). Trap I don't remember when exactly,
>maybe only at the "press" phase or at some other specific phase (like
>play when choosing strike). If it is the case, then Elysium will
>always be played before Trap, and you will never have a chance to play it
>then because combat will be ended.
Both Trap and Elysium are used before range is chosen, which is why
there's a "slap" conflict here. We'll see what the design team says.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.