Some questions

1) One of your vampire carries the Blood Tears. An opposing vampire wants to play another Blood Tears. Can you burn your Blood Tears and gain 2 blood before the contest begins ? 2) Can you play a 2nd tradition and untap a prince when the action does not have stealth. 3) Can you play a 2nd tradition to play a reaction like Telepatic misdirection ? 4) When you play additional strikes with Silence of Death, does the opposing vampire get to strike before the additional strikes ? Thanks, == Herve Guillemet

guil...@marsouin.imed.jussieu.fr (Herve Guillemet) writes: >1) One of your vampire carries the Blood Tears. An opposing vampire wants >to play another Blood Tears. Can you burn your Blood Tears and gain 2 >blood before the contest begins ? Answer still pending, sorry. >2) Can you play a 2nd tradition and untap a prince when the action >does not have stealth. No. You can never play a reaction card which gives intercept unless you need intercept. >3) Can you play a 2nd tradition to play a reaction like Telepatic >misdirection ? No. Card text says that the Prince/Justicar must attempt to block. If the block fails, you could then play another Reaction card with the newly untapped Prince/Justicar, of course. (Any time you gain intercept, you are attempting to block. By definition you don't need intercept unless you are attempting to block, and you can't gain intercept you don't need, so...) >4) When you play additional strikes with Silence of Death, does the opposing >vampire get to strike before the additional strikes ? Yes. Each "announce strike - resolve strike" set resolves in unison with the opposing minion. The "resolve strike" steps may be staggered if only one minion has struke with First Strike, and subsequent "announce" steps (with their matching resolve steps) may have to be skipped by a minion who doesn't have additional strikes. See the rules outline for a complete breakdown of the entire combat process. (Posted here every month, and available from my VtES page: http://www.HomeFree.Net/view/page.exe?236 -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | 'I know' is just 'I believe' http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | with delusions of grandeur. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Herve Guillemet (guil...@marsouin.imed.jussieu.fr) wrote: : 1) One of your vampire carries the Blood Tears. An opposing vampire wants : to play another Blood Tears. Can you burn your Blood Tears and gain 2 : blood before the contest begins ? My guess is that as long as you do so before his/her equipping action is completed, then that should not be a problem. It doesn't start contesting until it is in play, and you can burn yours whenever you want as long as it is not contested and is in play... at least, that's how I read the card. : 2) Can you play a 2nd tradition and untap a prince when the action : does not have stealth. : 3) Can you play a 2nd tradition to play a reaction like Telepatic : misdirection ? : 4) When you play additional strikes with Silence of Death, does the opposing : vampire get to strike before the additional strikes ? ?? I thought the card text was (from the spoiler list): Silence of Death (Combat) 1 Blood/Quietus Only usable before range is chosen. This vampire gets First Strike with hand and melee weapon strikes for the remainder of the round. Superior: As above, and this vampire gets an optional manuever during this round of combat. Illus. Stuart Beel If I understand your questions correctly, you have played Silence of Death and are now going to play some additional strikes afterwards. If so, then yes, they get their normal strike before the additional strikes begin. The phases go like this: Choose Strikes Resolve First Strikes completely. Resolve Normal Strikes completely. Choose Additional Strikes Resolve First Strike Additional Strikes completely. Resolve Normal First Strike Additional Strikes completely. etc. See either the rule book or one of the rules references to see that normal strikes are definitely resolved before additional strikes begin, regardless of whether any of the "additional" strikes are first strikes. The first strike specification simply denotes that a given strike is resolved before a normal strike chosen at the same time. -James

On 21 Jun 1996 09:57:44 GMT, guil...@marsouin.imed.jussieu.fr (Herve Guillemet) wrote: >1) One of your vampire carries the Blood Tears. An opposing vampire wants >to play another Blood Tears. Can you burn your Blood Tears and gain 2 >blood before the contest begins ? No. One he brings it out it is contested and out of play. No timing issue. >2) Can you play a 2nd tradition and untap a prince when the action >does not have stealth. Alas no >3) Can you play a 2nd tradition to play a reaction like Telepatic >misdirection ? No also The card primarily gives you intercept and you may only play an intercept card when you need intercept. The fact that it allows you to untap to block is a bonus. So you could play the reaction card if you tried to block but were stealthed past anyway. >4) When you play additional strikes with Silence of Death, does the opposing >vampire get to strike before the additional strikes ? I'd say yes but thats still open to interpertation. >Thanks, Welcome, Rory The Ref at refplace.best.com

On 21 Jun 1996 21:14:47 GMT, jam...@gw.digibd.com (James Puzzo) wrote: >: 4) When you play additional strikes with Silence of Death, does the opposing >: vampire get to strike before the additional strikes ? >?? >I thought the card text was (from the spoiler list): > Silence of Death (Combat) 1 Blood/Quietus > Only usable before range is chosen. This vampire gets First Strike with > hand and melee weapon strikes for the remainder of the round. > Superior: As above, and this vampire gets an optional manuever during > this round of combat. > Illus. Stuart Beel Except for the word the instead of this in the sceond sentance you are exactly right. I just checked. I would say that this means you have to resolve each strike as normal, you strike then they strike then resolve any additional strikes. 'Powerful but unlikely to come up often as you would have to be in a fight with 2 minions with additional strikes. Most additional strike minions also have little damage prevention available. The Ref at refp...@best.com

refp...@best.com (Rory) wrote: >On 21 Jun 1996 09:57:44 GMT, guil...@marsouin.imed.jussieu.fr (Herve >Guillemet) wrote: > >>1) One of your vampire carries the Blood Tears. An opposing vampire wants >>to play another Blood Tears. Can you burn your Blood Tears and gain 2 >>blood before the contest begins ? > >No. >One he brings it out it is contested and out of play. No timing >issue. > Does this mean as soon as he attempts to equip it, whether successful or not, the card is contested? This means that I can attempt to bring out a unique card and the opposing player's card is face down, even if it is blocked. If this is the case, this can be pretty interesting. hmm...my prey has muddled vampire hunter out with ivory bow. I play an ivory bow...his is put faced down....the ivory bow is blocked so I don't pay any pool...now I can bum rush that annoying hunter.... If this is not the case, then I don't see why you can't burn it the same time as when he is announcing the action, or during the block phase. ^ ^ | ^ \|/ ha...@shadow.net <---x---> Scott Marcellus /|\ http://www.shadow.net/~havok V | V V

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>1) One of your vampire carries the Blood Tears. An opposing vampire wants >>to play another Blood Tears. Can you burn your Blood Tears and gain 2 >>blood before the contest begins ? >Answer still pending, sorry. The older Blood Tears can be burned during the equip action that will produce the new one, yes. Cards do not become contested until they enter play. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:22:28 GMT, ha...@shadow.net (Scott Marcellus) wrote: > >Does this mean as soon as he attempts to equip it, whether successful >or not, the card is contested? This means that I can attempt to bring >out a unique card and the opposing player's card is face down, even if >it is blocked. If this is the case, this can be pretty interesting. >hmm...my prey has muddled vampire hunter out with ivory bow. I play an >ivory bow...his is put faced down....the ivory bow is blocked so I >don't pay any pool...now I can bum rush that annoying hunter.... >If this is not the case, then I don't see why you can't burn it the >same time as when he is announcing the action, or during the block >phase. > ^ > ^ | ^ > \|/ ha...@shadow.net ><---x---> Scott Marcellus > /|\ http://www.shadow.net/~havok > V | V > V This relates to the Heidleburg issue. During an action you can only do relavant things such as react. Before the action is announced or after it is complete you may do things but not in the middle of an action. Personally I feel you should only do things on your turn (Like giving up the edge except for a vote, or yielding) but I have no support for that position and its just my sense of asthetics. To allow things to be done in the middle of an action muddies up the game and brings up timing issues like other games have. Keep it simple. Rory The Ref at refp...@best.com

On 25 Jun 1996 07:24:46 GMT, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I really think timing issues like this are poor to encourage. just my HO The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > This relates to the Heidleburg issue. > During an action you can only do relavant things such as react. > Before the action is announced or after it is complete you may do > things but not in the middle of an action. A good house rule that should be made official. > Personally I feel you should only do things on your turn (Like giving > up the edge except for a vote, or yielding) but I have no support for > that position and its just my sense of asthetics. > To allow things to be done in the middle of an action muddies up the > game and brings up timing issues like other games have. I think we can avoid all of these problems by doing as Rory suggests. Cards like Heidelburg, etc., become less confusing and more consistent. A House Rule, LSJ? It would have my support. An official rule, Tom? How (un)likely? > Keep it simple. Here, here. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: >> This relates to the Heidleburg issue. >> During an action you can only do relavant things such as react. >> Before the action is announced or after it is complete you may do >> things but not in the middle of an action. >A good house rule that should be made official. >> Personally I feel you should only do things on your turn (Like giving >> up the edge except for a vote, or yielding) but I have no support for >> that position and its just my sense of asthetics. >> To allow things to be done in the middle of an action muddies up the >> game and brings up timing issues like other games have. >I think we can avoid all of these problems by doing as Rory suggests. >Cards like Heidelburg, etc., become less confusing and more consistent. >A House Rule, LSJ? It would have my support. An official rule, Tom? >How (un)likely? >> Keep it simple. > >Here, here. As far as keeping it simple goes: "Anytime *between actions* during any Meth's minion phase and/or during any other phase" should eliminate all timing concerns. Further restriction to "on one's own turn" would just be a matter of preference, with no further simplicity gained. I'm all for the former, but against the latter. If Rory or you (Corrupter) would care to formally submit the house rule, I'll be happy to include it (as always). If not, I'll probably include my version anyhow (I'm not prone to adding all of the variations posted here willy-nilly - not enough time in the day, you know). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a nightmare. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the sleep. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 Jun 1996 18:03:50 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >>On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: >>> This relates to the Heidleburg issue. >>> During an action you can only do relavant things such as react. >>> Before the action is announced or after it is complete you may do >>> things but not in the middle of an action. >>A good house rule that should be made official. Thanks, Corruptor. I'm still confused about your phrasing on the other thread, help? >>> Personally I feel you should only do things on your turn (Like giving >>> up the edge except for a vote, or yielding) but I have no support for >>> that position and its just my sense of asthetics. >>> To allow things to be done in the middle of an action muddies up the >>> game and brings up timing issues like other games have. >>I think we can avoid all of these problems by doing as Rory suggests. >>Cards like Heidelburg, etc., become less confusing and more consistent. >>A House Rule, LSJ? It would have my support. An official rule, Tom? >>How (un)likely? >>> Keep it simple. >> >>Here, here. >As far as keeping it simple goes: "Anytime *between actions* during any >Meth's minion phase and/or during any other phase" should eliminate all >timing concerns. Further restriction to "on one's own turn" would just >be a matter of preference, with no further simplicity gained. >I'm all for the former, but against the latter. I agree, as I said that was for asthetic reasons and I think your quite right about using the formor. The first one is good enough for me and since it already fits in with the Heidelburg ruling maybe Tom will also agree. >If Rory or you (Corrupter) would care to formally submit the house rule, >I'll be happy to include it (as always). If not, I'll probably include >my version anyhow (I'm not prone to adding all of the variations posted >here willy-nilly - not enough time in the day, you know). I'm flattered. So is just saying it enough or do you want it emailed and bound in blood? >-- >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a nightmare. >http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the sleep. >Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | The Ref at refp...@best.com