Greetings,
I've been checking online and can't find this specific ruling. I see
the terror frenzy ruling, but that refers to buring blood. I just
wanted to make sure.
If Dragos is in combat and someone plays superior Wave of Lethargy on
him:
[qui] Only usable before range is determined. Maneuvers and presses
cost the opposing vampire an additional blood to play this round. A
vampire may play only one Wave of Lethargy each round of combat. [QUI]
As above, and strike cards cost the opposing vampire an additional
blood to play this round.
Does he have to pay the additional for these cards now? What if he is
out of blood?
Thanks in advance,
Cecil
> If Dragos is in combat and someone plays superior Wave of Lethargy on
> him:> Does he have to pay the additional for these cards now? What if he is
> out of blood?
Dragos doesn't have to burn blood to play combat cards, so even if
another effect increases their cost, he still won't have to pay it.
(Although, if you were afraid of Taste of Vitae by your opponent, you
could still pay the increased costs if you wanted to.)
-- Brian
NO I don't think so ..
IMO it should be : special effects before the general rule ( Dragos'
ability in this case ) i.e. using sup Terror Frenzy on Dragos will make
him burn blood for each combat card also ..
[ quoted text not captured ]
Terror Frenzy reads "Opposing vampire burns an additional blood when
playing combat cards this combat.", not "cards cost that vampire an
additional blood." Anything that increases the cost has no effect on
Dragos, but he will have to burn the blood for terror frenzy, AFAIK.
John
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> Dragos doesn't have to burn blood to play combat cards, so even if
> another effect increases their cost, he still won't have to pay it.
>
> (Although, if you were afraid of Taste of Vitae by your opponent, you
> could still pay the increased costs if you wanted to.)
I don't believe Dragos has this choice. He does not burn blood to pay
the cost of combat cards, so increasing the cost will not allow him to
pay for it just because it could suit the situation.
> > (Although, if you were afraid of Taste of Vitae by your opponent, you
> > could still pay the increased costs if you wanted to.)
>
> I don't believe Dragos has this choice. He does not burn blood to pay
> the cost of combat cards, so increasing the cost will not allow him to
> pay for it just because it could suit the situation.
Official text from www.White-Wolf.com:
Dragos [Sabbat:V, SW:PT]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Tzimisce
Group: 2
Capacity: 7
Discipline: vic ANI AUS
Sabbat: Dragos does not have to burn blood to pay the cost of combat
cards he plays.
Artist: Mark Tedin
Since it says "does not have to", I would say his ability is optional.
Conversely, if this wording means that Dragos MUST not burn blood to
pay the cost of combat cards he plays, then what would a card with an
optional ability read?
-- Brian
firstco...@aol.com schreef:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Digging this one up, because I remembered this thread, and was
wondering if there was an answer to this.
IIRC Dragos's ability was ruled to not be optional. Is this true? If
so, to me this seems counterintuitive at best :) I wondered if it has
been ruled this way, this could be changed to it being optional?
Bram
Darky wrote:
> IIRC Dragos's ability was ruled to not be optional. Is this true? If
I don't recall any ruling on it one way or the other.
It is not optional, however. So it has now been ruled.
> so, to me this seems counterintuitive at best :) I wondered if it has
> been ruled this way, this could be changed to it being optional?
Why change?
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
> Darky wrote:
> > IIRC Dragos's ability was ruled to not be optional. Is this true? If
>
> I don't recall any ruling on it one way or the other.
> It is not optional, however. So it has now been ruled.
So, "does not have to burn blood" means "does not burn blood", on
Dragos. LSJ, I have two questions about how a ruling on a card's text
affects other cards with the same text.
1) Does a ruling affect all other cards with the same wording? (Not
that there are any yet for Dragos' text.)
If they do, then Dragos' text's wording seems problematic when combined
with this ruling, since it will affect other (future?) cards in an
adverse way.
Imagine the card "Ace in the Hole"
Ace in the Hole
Master
Put this card in play. You do not have to move vampires to your
controlled region at the end of your influence phase (even if they have
enough blood to enter the controlled region.)
2) Under the new Dragos ruling, would this card give you an OPTION not
to move vampires, or would it REQUIRE that you not move vampires?
> Why change?
So that cards can use the "does not have to" wording without it
becoming counterintuitive. So that cards with similar wordings
function similarly.
-- Brian
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>>>Darky wrote:
>>>>>IIRC Dragos's ability was ruled to not be optional. Is this true? If>>
>>I don't recall any ruling on it one way or the other.
>>It is not optional, however. So it has now been ruled.>
> So, "does not have to burn blood" means "does not burn blood", on
> Dragos. LSJ, I have two questions about how a ruling on a card's text
> affects other cards with the same text.
>
> 1) Does a ruling affect all other cards with the same wording? (Not
> that there are any yet for Dragos' text.)
A ruling on the meaning of a given wording applies to all instances
of that wording, yes.
> If they do, then Dragos' text's wording seems problematic when combined
> with this ruling, since it will affect other (future?) cards in an
> adverse way.
>
> Imagine the card "Ace in the Hole"
> Ace in the Hole
> Master
> Put this card in play. You do not have to move vampires to your
> controlled region at the end of your influence phase (even if they have
> enough blood to enter the controlled region.)
>
> 2) Under the new Dragos ruling, would this card give you an OPTION not
> to move vampires, or would it REQUIRE that you not move vampires?
Moot. Such a card would never be printed. If the intended effect is
to be optional, it would say "You may choose not to move ..."
>>Why change?>
> So that cards can use the "does not have to" wording without it
> becoming counterintuitive. So that cards with similar wordings
> function similarly.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]