[Spoilers] Gehenna card questions for LSJ

I’m pretty sure of the answers to these questions, but I have to convince my playgroup I’m not smoking crack like Peter Bajika. :) Scattershot Combat Only usable before resolution of a gun’s strike. This gun inflicts +2 damage at close range and -2 damage at long range for the remainder of this combat. No more than one ammo card can be used on a gun each combat. 1) Can a minion in combat play Scattershot on an opposing minion’s gun? Virolax Facility Master: Unique Location When a vampire you control with capacity above 7 is burned, burn this card and search your crypt for a vampire with capacity below 5. Place that vampire in your ready region with one blood. That vampire cannot act this turn. 2) Do you shuffle your crypt after retrieving the vampire? 3) If the vampire being burned has the Soul Gem of Etrius, are you free to order the Gem’s effect and the Facility’s effect? Soak Combat, Fortitude A vampire may play only one Soak each round. [for] Prevent up to 2 non-aggravated damage. [FOR] Prevent up to 4 non-aggravated damage. 4) Can a vampire who has played Skin of Night and taken aggravated damage play Soak to prevent it? 5) If a vampire with Ex Nihilio who has played Skin of Night takes aggravated damage, is the damage ignored?

Emmit Svenson wrote: > 1) Can a minion in combat play Scattershot on an opposing > minion’s gun? For these first three, I'm just guessing, because IANLSJ, so this means little, but I get to see if I'm right... No. > 2) Do you shuffle your crypt after retrieving the vampire? Have to. > 3) If the vampire being burned has the Soul Gem of Etrius, are you > free to order the Gem’s effect and the Facility’s effect? Yes. For these last two, though, I am sure: > 4) Can a vampire who has played Skin of Night and taken aggravated > damage play Soak to prevent it? No. The damage is still aggravated, even if the vamp treats it as normal, and Soak cannot prevent aggravated damage. See also: Resilience + Skin of Night. > 5) If a vampire with Ex Nihilio who has played Skin of Night takes > aggravated damage, is the damage ignored? Yes. The vampire treats the agg damage as normal, and normal damage is ignored. See also: Elemental Stoicism + Ex Nihilo. (Crucial text on Ex Nihilo: "and this vampire is immune to non-aggravated damage", rather than, eg, "This card prevents all non-aggravated damage") --Colin McGuigan

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote: > 1) Can a minion in combat play Scattershot on an opposing > minion’s gun? No. [LSJ 25-APR-2002]. > Virolax Facility > Master: Unique Location > When a vampire you control with capacity above 7 is burned, burn this > card and search your crypt for a vampire with capacity below 5. Place > that vampire in your ready region with one blood. That vampire cannot > act this turn. > > 2) Do you shuffle your crypt after retrieving the vampire? Yes. > 3) If the vampire being burned has the Soul Gem of Etrius, are you > free to order the Gem’s effect and the Facility’s effect? Yes. Not that it should matter much, unless you've some way to look at the top card of your crypt beforehand. > Soak > Combat, Fortitude > A vampire may play only one Soak each round. > [for] Prevent up to 2 non-aggravated damage. > [FOR] Prevent up to 4 non-aggravated damage. > > 4) Can a vampire who has played Skin of Night and taken aggravated > damage play Soak to prevent it? No. Soak cannot prevent aggravated damage, regardless of how the minion will end up treating that unprevented damage. > 5) If a vampire with Ex Nihilio who has played Skin of Night takes > aggravated damage, is the damage ignored? Yes. [LSJ 29-JAN-2001] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: <some answers> 5 for 5 baby! I am BULLETPROOF! --Colin McGuigan

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote: > > Virolax Facility > > Master: Unique Location > > When a vampire you control with capacity above 7 is burned, burn this > > card and search your crypt for a vampire with capacity below 5. Place > > that vampire in your ready region with one blood. That vampire cannot > > act this turn. > > > > 2) Do you shuffle your crypt after retrieving the vampire? > > Yes. This is errata to the card, right? (Well, assuming that the text above is correct and complete.) At least, it seems to have required errata for the similar case of Coroner's Contact and Stranger Among Us: [LSJ 04-Mar-2002] http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=3C83C979.413D0AE8%40white-wolf.com > > 3) If the vampire being burned has the Soul Gem of Etrius, are you > > free to order the Gem’s effect and the Facility’s effect? > > Yes. Not that it should matter much, unless you've some way to look at > the top card of your crypt beforehand. Well, if your crypt contains relatively few vampires with capacity below 5, removing one of the "below 5" vamps before using the Soul Gem effect should increase your odds of drawing a "worthwhile" vampire with the Soul Gem (ie one that is still younger than the Soul Gem bearer but otherwise as old and ability-laden as possible). Oh, while we're on tangential matters, Pete Oh pointed this out: there are some library cards where the title is so long that it covers up part or all of the expansion symbol in the upper right corner... and it's not an attractive effect. Church of the Order of St. Blaise, and Neighborhood Watch Commander (Hunter), maybe more. Couldn't they have shifted the expansion symbol a little bit down the card or something? Ah well, maybe next time. Josh order of st bla?

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<LdWcnXP5idk...@speakeasy.net>... > LSJ wrote: > <some answers> > > 5 for 5 baby! I am BULLETPROOF! Statements like this could lead to tragic gunshot accidents, you know. :P > > --Colin McGuigan -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: > Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<LdWcnXP5idk...@speakeasy.net>... >>5 for 5 baby! I am BULLETPROOF! > > Statements like this could lead to tragic gunshot accidents, you know. :P True, because the bullets may bounce off of my body and ricochet into some bystander. --Colin McGuigan

Joshua Duffin wrote: > This is errata to the card, right? (Well, assuming that the text above > is correct and complete.) At least, it seems to have required errata > for the similar case of Coroner's Contact and Stranger Among Us: [LSJ > 04-Mar-2002] > > http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=3C83C979.413D0AE8%40white-wolf.com Yes. And here's a better one: if an effect causes you to search your library, shuffle it afterward. If an effect causes you to search your crypt, shuffle it afterward. (errata to the rules). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:SMicnWxhzfY...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Well historically several indiginous groups thought that special armor would make them bullet proof. The Apache did and look where it got them. short story. No one is bullet proof, just some are luckier that others and manage to avoid them from time to time. Raille A bullet with a name on it.

Raille wrote: > Well historically several indiginous groups thought that special armor would > make them bullet proof. > The Apache did and look where it got them. You're thinking of the Sioux. > short story. No one is bullet proof, just some are luckier that others and > manage to avoid them from time to time. Are you Canadian? --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:mpicnTT9B9v...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Nope, but I occasionally habg out with Wes. Raille

Raille wrote: > "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message >>Are you Canadian? > > Nope, but I occasionally habg out with Wes. Ok. Glad that's cleared up then. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<mpicnTT9B9v...@speakeasy.net>... > Raille wrote: > > Well historically several indiginous groups thought that special armor would > > make them bullet proof. > > The Apache did and look where it got them. > > You're thinking of the Sioux. well, they call themselves the (X)akota(X= D, L or N depending on Dialect), whose Ghost Dance (which supposedly made them bulletproof) actually *did* scare the U.S. Goverment... [ quoted text not captured ]

"arden mcbathan" <sonnenk...@aol.com> wrote in message news:aae0be1a.04052...@posting.google.com... > Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<mpicnTT9B9v...@speakeasy.net>... > > Raille wrote: > > > Well historically several indiginous groups thought that special armor would > > > make them bullet proof. > > > The Apache did and look where it got them. > > > > You're thinking of the Sioux. > > well, they call themselves the (X)akota(X= D, L or N depending on > Dialect), whose Ghost Dance (which supposedly made them bulletproof) > actually *did* scare the U.S. Goverment... Like thats even hard to do. the U SGovt is scared of just about everything. Raille

arden mcbathan wrote: > well, they call themselves the (X)akota(X= D, L or N depending on > Dialect), whose Ghost Dance (which supposedly made them bulletproof) > actually *did* scare the U.S. Goverment... Till they got shot. --Colin McGuigan

> > Yes. > And here's a better one: if an effect causes you to search your > library, shuffle it afterward. If an effect causes you to search > your crypt, shuffle it afterward. (errata to the rules). I assume that doesn't apply to Tapestry of Blood which allows you to merely look at the top three cards? Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] Tapestry of Blood isn't "searching your library". It's "looking at the top three cards of any metuselah's library". -- Powerbase: Turku http://www.tenerdo.org/

"JH" <jhatt...@SPAMtenerdoPLEASE.org> wrote in message news:opr81nx0...@news.utu.fi... > On 3 Jun 2004 17:29:42 -0700, Chris Arthur <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote: [LSJ wrote] > >> Yes. > >> And here's a better one: if an effect causes you to search your > >> library, shuffle it afterward. If an effect causes you to search > >> your crypt, shuffle it afterward. (errata to the rules). > > > > I assume that doesn't apply to Tapestry of Blood which allows you to > > merely look at the top three cards? > > Tapestry of Blood isn't "searching your library". It's "looking at the > top three cards of any metuselah's library". Right. Nonetheless, it might be clearer to phrase the errata to the rules as: "If an effect causes you to search your library for a card, shuffle it afterwards", etc. (ie, to make it more apparent what kind of searching requires shuffling afterwards - though this is probably dependent on all actual cards using an appropriate template for their own phrasing.) Josh in search of lost pool

Joshua Duffin wrote: > [LSJ wrote] >>>>And here's a better one: if an effect causes you to search your >>>>library, shuffle it afterward. If an effect causes you to search >>>>your crypt, shuffle it afterward. (errata to the rules). > Right. Nonetheless, it might be clearer to phrase the errata to the > rules as: "If an effect causes you to search your library for a card, > shuffle it afterwards", etc. (ie, to make it more apparent what kind of > searching requires shuffling afterwards - though this is probably > dependent on all actual cards using an appropriate template for their > own phrasing.) There is nothing in your library other than cards, so the above "clearer" seems to be a simple restatement, not a clarification (and may actually lead some rules lawyers to ask about searching for cards plural). There is no searching of the library that is not searching for card(s). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:_z7wc.5178$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > [LSJ wrote] > >>>>And here's a better one: if an effect causes you to search your > >>>>library, shuffle it afterward. If an effect causes you to search > >>>>your crypt, shuffle it afterward. (errata to the rules). > > Right. Nonetheless, it might be clearer to phrase the errata to the > > rules as: "If an effect causes you to search your library for a card, > > shuffle it afterwards", etc. (ie, to make it more apparent what kind of > > searching requires shuffling afterwards - though this is probably > > dependent on all actual cards using an appropriate template for their > > own phrasing.) > > There is nothing in your library other than cards, so the above > "clearer" seems to be a simple restatement, not a clarification (and > may actually lead some rules lawyers to ask about searching for > cards plural). There is no searching of the library that is not > searching for card(s). Yeah, looking at it again it's probably not significantly clearer. The errata to the rules seems to hinge on the keyword "search" (as opposed to "look"). Maybe just mention that the effect must use the word "search" to trigger the reshuffle? That is pretty obvious to me by "if an effect causes you to search your library", but as I think we saw in this thread, not necessarily obvious to everyone. Josh searching for a better card