rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Hell Hound & vote questions

5 messages from 3 participants · 10 March 1999
original thread on Google Groups

LSJ

On VTES-L, RAUL ROJO wrote: > > Hi to all VTES players. I've been enjoying this game since the very > first, and limited, edition called Jyhad, but this is the first time > (and I hope not the last) I post something to an electronic mailing > list. I suppose that makes of me a clumsy neonate. Anyway, I have one or > two questions ready to be solved (I've written my own answer -if any- in > brackets). Thanks to all (specially to LSJ). Welcome aboard. > 1. Despite the fact that almost every ally doesn't worth its cost, > they may seem useful in a "weenie madness" deck. I'll pay attention to a > single one ally: Hell Hound. > > As it's noted on the card text, Hell hound cannot take any > actions, although he still may block and thus enter combat. In > such combats, he may play certain combat cards without any > discipline requirements and, well...that's the point where > problems begin. I don't know if someone has realized that, in a > combat where at least one Hell Hound is involved, the controller > of this ally may play combat cards such as Zip Gun (he may indeed > play ammo cards, like Dragon's Breath Rounds) > > Problems? It sounds ridiculous to me that a dog, even a > ghoulized one, could handle a gun, aim or pull the trigger > without vicissitude improvements (at best). That's all. Any > suggestion? It is allowed. As a card game, reality sometimes has to take second place to the rules in order to keep the game playable. > 2. Is Toreador Grand Ball burned when the second Toreador > you've chosen (the one that doesn't untap as normal) is as well > burned or sent to torpor? If that vampire has zero blood on it, > is he commited to hunt if any opportunity is given? (i.e. am I > forced to untap via Alexandra's ability in order to hunt) No and no. If he finds himself untapped (and ready and not otherwise prevented from hunting), he'll have to hunt - but you are under no obligation to untap him in the first place. > [On one hand, I have to think that this master card only > works when both Toreadors chosen are "ready", which means that > it will be burned in the first case, but not in the second. On > the other hand, the effect of untapping avoids the obligation to > hunt, but if that vampire untaps by any means, he must do so] The card places no restriction on the "readiness" or "in playness" of the vampire, it simply prevents the vampire from untapping. If the vampire is burned to torporized, the Ball continues to function normally. Good call on the untap-hunting point, though. > 3. Can Telepathic Vote Counting basic level cancel a > political action before (or during) blocking attempts or do I > have to wait 'til it's unblocked and thus begins the referendum > step? > > [I think this action modifier only cancels unblocked > political actions, during the referendum step] Correct. > 4. Let's suppose that I call a vote and I play some action > modifiers like Awe or Telepathic Vote Counting (at superior > level) and after tallying the votes, this vote passes (it's > succesful), but I have no Voter Captivation in my hand. So, when > the vote is resolved, I have to replenish my hand. Does the > effects of the Voter Captivation take place if I draw it when the > political action has just finished (and I play it, of course)? > > [I'm not quite sure about the answer of this one] No. None of the cards played during the referendum are replaced until after the referendum, which is after the time that Voter Captivation can be played. > 5. If by any means a vampire is reduced to zero blood and > has one, or more, copies of Pulled Fangs on it, is he forced to > take one of the actions provided by this card to burn it? > > [I think not, because in such cases only hunt is mandatory > and that vampire cannot hunt because of Pulled Fangs effect] He neither hunts nor can take the action to burn a Pulled Fangs - he goes to torpor (as soon as he has to hunt and cannot). > 6. I've heard some rumours about a "Black Hand" expansion. Is it > true? No. Some new cards are set to be released late this year, but they are not related to the (more than a year old) rumors of the (still non-existent) Black Hand expansion. -- 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

Dhar...@yahoo.com

vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > It is allowed. As a card game, reality sometimes has to take > second place to the rules in order to keep the game playable. Heh. This was certainly proven by the First Strike vs. Dodge debate. > If the vampire is burned to torporized, the Ball continues to > function normally. Hrm. This struck me funny. If the Toreador that was supposed to remain tapped takes an action that burns it, say Force of Will, the other Toreador would still be able to continue to play unblockable actions. ' Hrm. Toreador with Fortitude.... Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > It is allowed. As a card game, reality sometimes has to take > > second place to the rules in order to keep the game playable. > > Heh. This was certainly proven by the First Strike vs. Dodge debate. Sigh. Something may have been proven by that "debate" - but it wasn't that. One ordering produces a game that is no more or less playable than the game that would be produced by the other ordering. And neither is more reality-based than the other. One just happens to be the correct (read: official) way to play, just as it always has been. > > If the vampire is burned to torporized, the Ball continues to > > function normally. > > Hrm. This struck me funny. If the Toreador that was supposed to remain > tapped takes an action that burns it, say Force of Will, the other Toreador > would still be able to continue to play unblockable actions. ' What's funny about that? The Ball isn't concerned with the status of that vampire - it merely prevents him from untapping. This follows quite clearly from card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com

LSJ> It is allowed. As a card game, reality sometimes has to take LSJ> second place to the rules in order to keep the game playable. Noal> Heh. This was certainly proven by the First Strike vs. Dodge debate. LSJ> Sigh. LSJ> LSJ> Something may have been proven by that "debate" - but it wasn't that. Relax. *grin* It was nothing more than a poke in good fun. It certainly wasn't an attempt to get that nonsense started again. Although the, "something may have been proven" sounds ominous... I hope you haven't been taking our arguments personally. I certainly don't. Noal> Hrm. This struck me funny. LSJ> What's funny about that? The Ball isn't concerned with the status of LSJ> that vampire - it merely prevents him from untapping. This follows LSJ> quite clearly from card text. Not "hey that breaks the rules" funny...more like "hey, I never gave that any thought" funny. I only have two Balls so I never spent much time playing with them. (*grin* yes, the pun was intended) Seriously, I'd been thinking about a Millicent Smith/Reversal of Fortune/Grand Ball deck for a while but I don't have the cards for it. I may have to knock on Korshavn's (sp?) door for singles. First time for everything. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, LSJ wrote: > On VTES-L, RAUL ROJO wrote: > > 1. Despite the fact that almost every ally doesn't worth its cost, > > they may seem useful in a "weenie madness" deck. I'll pay attention to a > > single one ally: Hell Hound. > > > > As it's noted on the card text, Hell hound cannot take any > > actions, although he still may block and thus enter combat. In > > such combats, he may play certain combat cards without any > > discipline requirements and, well...that's the point where > > problems begin. I don't know if someone has realized that, in a > > combat where at least one Hell Hound is involved, the controller > > of this ally may play combat cards such as Zip Gun (he may indeed > > play ammo cards, like Dragon's Breath Rounds) It should be pointed out that, with current errata, Zip Gun cannot use ammo. > > Problems? It sounds ridiculous to me that a dog, even a > > ghoulized one, could handle a gun, aim or pull the trigger > > without vicissitude improvements (at best). That's all. Any > > suggestion? > > It is allowed. As a card game, reality sometimes has to take > second place to the rules in order to keep the game playable. Personally, I love the fact that a Hell Hound can get equipment. After all, there are alot of strange creatures in the WOD universe, and if a powerful ancient Methuselah wants a canine-derived ally that can use equipment, why should he not be able to obtain one? Sure, I know the regular WOD does not seem to have such creatures, but then again, the regular WOD is not run by Methuselahs like me. Nor are Hell Hounds limited to using only Zip Guns. All one need do is bring out some weenies and have them recruit a Hell Hound and equip with some items. Then you can use the Succubus Club to pay a Methuselah across the table 1 pool in exchange for a round trip transfer of all your equipment. When it comes back to you, you can put as much as you like on the Hell Hound. He can have Sports Bikes, Leather Jackets, Flame Throwers, Retainers, whatever...and theres no rule that he cannot use them. I call this concept the "Scooby-Doo" deck, and I've been meaning to make one some day. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |