NoR Pre-Release and Questions

Greetings, hoping people can help answer some of the following questions ... we had a great time but certain things came up: General Readiness - we assumed that you must be untapped and ready to use any power, like Donate. Is this correct? Putrescent Servitude vs. React With Conviction - does React cancel P.S. or does it only cancel the change of control part of the action? - if only the control change then is the Imbued now a Monster (Ghoul). Can An Imbued Recruit a Procurer (blood cost = life cost?)? Earl vs. Untap Order (Earl is the 6 cap with +1 stealth on all actions but must burn a conviction in untap if you control more than 2 Imbued). - can you order the untap and burn ZERO conviction (if he has none) then place one on him? The Inflict Card - do they stack in effect if you play multiple? Rejuvenate vs. Incapacitated - by card text it lets you can a blood in untap so you can do so while incapacitated. - does this mean the imbued can have life while incapacitated? Donate vs. Incapacitated - can an Incapacitated Imbued burn conviction and use Donate? Thanks for Any Help. D

quetzalcoatl wrote: > General Readiness > - we assumed that you must be untapped and ready to use any power, like > Donate. Is this correct? No. See the preview or rule card #3 (or the following). You have to be untapped and ready to use action or reaction abilities of powers. You have to be acting to use action modifier abilities (at which time you'll likely be tapped already). You have to be in combat to use combat abilities (so you'll have to be ready, but may be tapped). Card text may override any of these, of course. Donate's card text provides such overrides, however, with the result that it can only be used by a ready imbued. > Putrescent Servitude vs. React With Conviction > - does React cancel P.S. or does it only cancel the change of control > part of the action? RwC cancels PS as PS is played -- the entire effect of PS is lost (and the acting vampire doesn't tap). > Can An Imbued Recruit a Procurer (blood cost = life cost?)? No. Allies cannot pay blood costs. > Earl vs. Untap Order (Earl is the 6 cap with +1 stealth on all actions > but must burn a conviction in untap if you control more than 2 Imbued). > - can you order the untap and burn ZERO conviction (if he has none) > then place one on him? Yes. > The Inflict Card > - do they stack in effect if you play multiple? Yes. > Rejuvenate vs. Incapacitated > - by card text it lets you can a blood in untap so you can do so while > incapacitated. > - does this mean the imbued can have life while incapacitated? Yes. > Donate vs. Incapacitated > - can an Incapacitated Imbued burn conviction and use Donate? No. Card text: "ready" or "Reaction" or "ready" -- all three effects require a ready imbued.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, LSJ wrote: > You have to be untapped and ready to use action or reaction abilities > of powers. > You have to be acting to use action modifier abilities (at which time > you'll likely be tapped already). > You have to be in combat to use combat abilities (so you'll have to be > ready, but may be tapped). > Card text may override any of these, of course. Note that Vigilance (untap this Imbued as an action modifier or reaction) lacks text indicating the reaction version is playable while tapped. Of course the obvious designer's intent is that it's playable while tapped since it's not worth it to burn conviction to untap an untapped Imbued. Still, it did lead to a small amount of confusion at the Baltimore pre-release as some players wondered if other reaction abilities were usable while tapped. Cooler heads prevailed and we assumed the error was in Vigilance's text. Matt Morgan P.S. Don't have a copy in front of me, so if it does actually say something about playable while tapped, then I guess we just got over excited in the heat of battle and missed it.

>Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > P.S. Don't have a copy in front of me, so if it does actually say > something about playable while tapped, then I guess we just got over > excited in the heat of battle and missed it. Hi! No! The card is not usable by a tapped imbued atm. We also ruled that it was designers intent that it should be usable when tapped. Great expansion though, looks nice and balanced. Was a bit dissappointed with the "crappier than lucky blow" cleave. Best wishes Alex Ek Prince of Gothenburg

_angst_ wrote: > >Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > > P.S. Don't have a copy in front of me, so if it does actually say > > something about playable while tapped, then I guess we just got over > > excited in the heat of battle and missed it. > > Hi! > No! > The card is not usable by a tapped imbued atm. > We also ruled that it was designers intent that it should be usable > when tapped. Elder Library seems to cost zero pool now - probably a misprint as well. > Great expansion though, looks nice and balanced. Was a bit > dissappointed with the "crappier than lucky blow" cleave. Can't you stack up Cleaves though? And replace them before range is chosen? And use them with Mass Reality? [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, LSJ wrote: > Note that Vigilance (untap this Imbued as an action modifier or reaction) > lacks text indicating the reaction version is playable while tapped. Of > course the obvious designer's intent is that it's playable while tapped > since it's not worth it to burn conviction to untap an untapped Imbued. Gah! The old Cats' Guidance effect. (With the old Cats' Guidance errata, too, now.) Thanks for the catch.

lactamaeon wrote: > Elder Library seems to cost zero pool now - probably a misprint as > well. I noticed this too. Was this a misprint or has the text changed? We played with it still costing 1 pool on Saturday thinking that there was no way that this would change. Also, are the rule cards legal for play (after the 30 day rule of course)? Bernie

"lactamaeon" <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message news:1144598403.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Regarding Cleave, I don't have the card text right in front of me, but a couple of questions: (1) If you use the put it into play as a weapon option, does it do strength damage, or strength plus 1? (At DC pre-release today, we assumed str +1, but I still have doubts on this ruling.) (2) Is the Cleave-as-weapon eligible to be Cleaved by a second copy of the card? (We ruled yes, and I think this is correct.) (3) Do multiple Cleaves allow additional damage to be added, to the Cleave-as-weapon or any other weapon? (We assumed yes, since combat cards aren't limited by default, but might as well get a ruling while it's on my mind.) (Same question as asked above, I just noticed... but haven't seen an answer yet.) TIA, Pat

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 23:07:42 -0400, "Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote: Re: Cleave >(1) If you use the put it into play as a weapon option, does it do strength >damage, or strength plus 1? (At DC pre-release today, we assumed str +1, but >I still have doubts on this ruling.) Only strength. >(2) Is the Cleave-as-weapon eligible to be Cleaved by a second copy of the >card? (We ruled yes, and I think this is correct.) Yes. >(3) Do multiple Cleaves allow additional damage to be added, to the >Cleave-as-weapon or any other weapon? Yes. You may continue to Cleave until you run out, and all will add +1 damage to the existing melee weapon. Alternately, all Cleaves played after the first will add +1 damage to the new Cleave-as-weapon created by the play of the first.

The Lasombra wrote: > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 23:07:42 -0400, "Pat" > <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote: > > Re: Cleave > >>(1) If you use the put it into play as a weapon option, does it do strength >>damage, or strength plus 1? (At DC pre-release today, we assumed str +1, but >>I still have doubts on this ruling.) > > Only strength. I disagree. "Choose a melee weapon this imbued has or spend 1 conviction to put this card on this imbued to represent a melee weapon that does strength damage each strike." I don't have a melee weapon currently, so I spend a conviction and put this card on me. I now have a Cleave, Melee Weapon: Str damage. "This melee weapon inflicts +1 additional damage." So my Cleave now does str +1 damage, and can kill Ambrosius. Yay! The "this melee weapon" is obviously talking about either the one you already had, or the one you created with this card. Hmm...cleaving with wooden stakes. I think I have a new deck idea.... -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > The Lasombra wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 23:07:42 -0400, "Pat" > > <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote: > > > > Re: Cleave > > > >>(1) If you use the put it into play as a weapon option, does it do strength > >>damage, or strength plus 1? (At DC pre-release today, we assumed str +1, but > >>I still have doubts on this ruling.) > > > > Only strength. > > I disagree. > > "Choose a melee weapon this imbued has or spend 1 conviction to put this > card on this imbued to represent a melee weapon that does strength > damage each strike." > > I don't have a melee weapon currently, so I spend a conviction and put > this card on me. I now have a Cleave, Melee Weapon: Str damage. > > "This melee weapon inflicts +1 additional damage." > > So my Cleave now does str +1 damage, and can kill Ambrosius. Yay! > > The "this melee weapon" is obviously talking about either the one you > already had, or the one you created with this card. Correct.

The Lasombra wrote: > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 23:07:42 -0400, "Pat" > <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote: > > Re: Cleave > > >(1) If you use the put it into play as a weapon option, does it do strength > >damage, or strength plus 1? (At DC pre-release today, we assumed str +1, but > >I still have doubts on this ruling.) > > Only strength. Strength + 1 (see Salem's analysis for explanation). > >(2) Is the Cleave-as-weapon eligible to be Cleaved by a second copy of the > >card? (We ruled yes, and I think this is correct.) > > Yes. Correct. > >(3) Do multiple Cleaves allow additional damage to be added, to the > >Cleave-as-weapon or any other weapon? > > Yes. Correct.

A bit off-topic, but still about using Cleave. When using Cleave on Living Wood Staff, will the bonus damage stay on the Staff "forever"? If not, why?

dvorax wrote: > A bit off-topic, but still about using Cleave. When using Cleave on > Living Wood Staff, will the bonus damage stay on the Staff "forever"? No. > If not, why? It's a combat card. The duration of a combat card's effect is the round in which it is played, by default.

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course, Cleave's text says "end of action" (at least for burning the weapon), so it kind of implies that the effect will last that long as well, overriding the "this round" default, but still not lingering "forever".

LSJ wrote: > Of course, Cleave's text says "end of action" (at least for burning the > weapon), so it kind of implies that the effect will last that long as > well, overriding the "this round" default, but still not lingering > "forever". So, does it last until the end of the action then? For that minion who used Form of Mist and then got re-blocked by a Vigilant Avenger? Witness1 -ItE

Where's the kill Ambrosius part come in?

d wrote: > Where's the kill Ambrosius part come in? What kill Ambrosius part? If you're talking about Cleave, then it comes from Cleave's card text regarding immunity to non-agg damage.

[ quoted text not captured ] What happens if the action is canceled (A la Tangle Atropos Hand/psychomachia at outferior), I'm assuming the Cleaved weapon stays. By analogy to force of will. Does it keep its affect as well? A very corner case example (It would require someone blocking the acting putrescent servile imbued who plays cleave, the blocker then uses foresee to let the action continue and then blocks with a different minion and the imbued tangles the hand of atropos), but probably worth knowing for any future end of action clauses. Will

Loadquo wrote: > What happens if the action is canceled (A la Tangle Atropos > Hand/psychomachia at outferior), I'm assuming the Cleaved weapon stays. > By analogy to force of will. > Does it keep its affect as well? No. It ends when the action ends. Force of Will's damage occurs after resolution (and hinges on resolution). A better analogy would be Serenading the Kami or Truth of Blood.

LSJ wrote: > > Putrescent Servitude vs. React With Conviction > > - does React cancel P.S. or does it only cancel the change of control > > part of the action? > > RwC cancels PS as PS is played -- the entire effect of PS is lost (and > the acting vampire doesn't tap). > require a ready imbued. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something about this. Thanatosis is not on the list of disciplines on RwC, but it does contain an "effect that would change control of this imbued." If something cancels an effect does it always cancel all the effects of a card? IE, is canceling an effect the same as canceling a card? I would have thought only the changing control effect of PS would be lost, and that the Imbued would still have the PS card on them, and gain one life and potence. Does that mean each card results in a single "effect?" Other cards, such as Recalled to the Founder, talk about the effects, plural, of a single card. Or does it mean that the other effects of Putrescent Servitude all depend on the take control effect? Thanks, -MathiasTCK Card text: Putrescent Servitude Type(s): Action Discipline(s): Thanatosis Blood Cost: 1 +1 stealth action. [thn] Move any mortal or ghoul retainer you control to this vampire, or put this card on a mortal or ghoul ally you control. This ally gains 1 life, and he or she may play cards that require basic Potence [pot] as a vampire. [THN] (D) As above, but take any mortal or ghoul retainer or put this card on any mortal or ghoul ally and take control of that ally. React with Conviction [NoR:C] Cardtype: Conviction When an effect that would change control of this imbued is played or announced, you may burn this card to cancel that effect. Burn this card to cancel either a (D) action against this imbued that requires Chimerstry [chi], Dementation [dem], Dominate [dom], Presence [pre], or Serpentis [ser] or a strike card that requires any of those Disciplines played by a minion opposing this imbued as it is announced. No cost is paid.

MathiasTCK wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > Putrescent Servitude vs. React With Conviction > > > - does React cancel P.S. or does it only cancel the change of control > > > part of the action? > > > > RwC cancels PS as PS is played -- the entire effect of PS is lost (and > > the acting vampire doesn't tap). > > require a ready imbued. > > I just want to make sure I'm not missing something about this. > Thanatosis is not on the list of disciplines on RwC, but it does > contain an "effect that would change control of this imbued." If > something cancels an effect does it always cancel all the effects of a > card? No. But when something cancels an action card as the action is announced (which is the same as "when the action card is played" for action-card actions), then the effect of playing that action card is canceled. RwC cancels Putrescent Servitude as the PS action is announced / as the PS card is played.