In article <3iqkhk$k...@tribune.usask.ca>
sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:
> Guy Keen (G...@hceltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Secondly, a set of "official" (whatever that really means) card rulings
> : elsewhere on the net says that the card:
> : "Hoses the vampire about to receive the agg. damage, not the VAMPIRE
> : (should read minion) dealing it"
>
> : So unless this replacement text has come from a subsequent "official"
> : ruling, I don't think it's correct.
>
> in the second-most recent DTR, there was a reversal on Rotschreck so that
> it now hoses the vampire _dealing_ the agg. damage. This frustrated many
> VtM players, as it is now directly opposite what it is in the WW game,
> but that is the latest word.
>
> Shane Travis | There are two kinds of men who never amount to
> sht...@duke.usask.ca | very much: those who cannot do what they are told,
> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | and those who can do nothing else.
> | -- Cyrus H.K. Curtis
Recently, We had a Fantasy and Sci Fi convention here at BYU. Richard
Garfield attended and I asked him about the intention behind
Rotschreck. I got _in writing_ from him that Rotschreck is played on
the vampire who is about to receive agg. damage. For thos of you who
have played V:tM, think about it. Rotschreck is when you freak out
when damage (agg. damage) is about to be dealt to you i.e. when you see
sunlight, or something similar. Richard's intrepretation may not mean
anything to you, but that is how we play it in our group.
Poc...@BYU.EDU (Jason Moore) writes:
>Recently, We had a Fantasy and Sci Fi convention here at BYU. Richard
>Garfield attended and I asked him about the intention behind
>Rotschreck. I got _in writing_ from him that Rotschreck is played on
>the vampire who is about to receive agg. damage.
I'd like a copy of that writing, as (no doubt) many others on the group
would. Did you ask him why the WotC rules team ruled the other way?
While we're at it, we'll need rulings from Dr. Garfield on Cryptic Rider,
attacking yourself, multiple retainers, (D) bleeds against Methuselehs
other than your prey, Pulled Fangs in the Elysium, etc. Dealing with
these bizarre rulings gets exhausting after a while.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Poc...@BYU.EDU (Jason Moore) writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
No offense, and I am prone to beleiving you, but...
Me telling someone that you have a letter from Garfield isn't going to cut
it as an official answer.
So, until an official source is made available (post from a representative
to t-c.jyhad? probably not since the *%!@# don't feel it necessary to
support this group anymore :-( or until another DTR reverses it again),
the current official ruling is that Rotshreck hoses the dealer, making the
card mis-named and mis-written, but...
In article <3ivgu9$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>Poc...@BYU.EDU (Jason Moore) writes:
>>>Recently, We had a Fantasy and Sci Fi convention here at BYU. Richard
>>Garfield attended and I asked him about the intention behind
>>Rotschreck. I got _in writing_ from him that Rotschreck is played on
>>the vampire who is about to receive agg. damage.>
>I'd like a copy of that writing, as (no doubt) many others on the group
>would. Did you ask him why the WotC rules team ruled the other way?
I can answer this question. The WotC rules team tried to
derive a ruling from the literal interpretation, and when that
isn't sufficient (because the rules were badly worded, etc.),
they try to find an interpretation that
they think is literal. They often don't know /why/ the
rules were written as they are now, and they seemingly
don't bother to ask. Their ruling is
official, but it may differ considerably from the
original intent of the designer.
>While we're at it, we'll need rulings from Dr. Garfield on Cryptic Rider,
>attacking yourself, multiple retainers, (D) bleeds against Methuselehs
>other than your prey, Pulled Fangs in the Elysium, etc. Dealing with
>these bizarre rulings gets exhausting after a while.
And Dodges+Grenade, and not declaring a strike in combat,
and Arson, and Blood Rage, and Chainsaw, and Rescuing
another player's vampire from torpor. Just some fine
points.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Jason Moore (Poc...@BYU.EDU) wrote:
: Recently, We had a Fantasy and Sci Fi convention here at BYU. Richard: Garfield attended and I asked him about the intention behind
: Rotschreck. I got _in writing_ from him that Rotschreck is played on
: the vampire who is about to receive agg. damage.
That's nice. I'm happy for you. Really.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, all we have to go on is the word of the
official Net-Rep for WotC and the (latest) ruling form the Design Team that
says it should be played so that the dealing vampire gets hosed. Not
that I don't appreciate you putting up RCG's opinion of the card (I do)
but there is nothing to stop anyone from saying, "I have it in writing
that Blood Rage is supposed to be a Thaumatrgy card, and that's the way
we play it..."
People - play by _whatever_ rules you can get your playing group to agree
to. We have several in our group that enhance our enjoyment of the game
but are definitely not official. (Example - all master cards played on a
vampire who is later contested stay on that vampire, even if the person
who put them there loses the contested card.) It is just that if people
come around here asking for the latest _rulings_ on Rotechreck (or
whatever) then they need to be told that Tom and/or the Design Team have
said.
: For thos of you who: have played V:tM, think about it. Rotschreck is when you freak out
: when damage (agg. damage) is about to be dealt to you i.e. when you see
: sunlight, or something similar.
This is the traditional argument. My belief is that the card was
mis-named and it was always supposed to do what it does. That is _my_
belief, and you aren't going to shake me out of it, so don't bother
trying. :-) (Not surprisingly - I've never played VtM... :-)
(seriously - unless one was going to be burned, what is the advantage to
playing a Rotschreck? I go to torpor, and have to stay there for _two_
turns if played by the old ruling, instead of going to torpor minus a
little blood, but able to come out right away...)
[ quoted text not captured ]
I recently played in a tournament where both WoTC AND White Wolf attended.
WoTC's current official ruling is that Rot is played on the vamp dealing damage --
NOT FOR LONG!! White Wolf staunchly put them in their place. Rot is played by AND on the Vamp being attacked.
In the RPG, Rot is another word for "scared $#!+less", thus the effect.
>First : What exactly does mean "attempts to use aggravated damage " ?
> suppose both vampires are using hands at LONG range (no damage)
> under some dawn operation or so : Can i use Rotschreck ?
Last I heard (Rotschreck rulings are notoriously unstable), attempts to
use aggro, even ineffectively (at long range) counted as attempts. This
actually fits with V:tM; vampires can panic when someone Flics his Bic
(although it's not likely).
> So I don't understand why Wotc went away from R.G meaning .
A mystery to me as well.
>3 rd : Dawn operation, close range , BOTH players use Rot. ;
> what happens ?
> Traditionnal ruling would say acting player use his
> out-of-turn first (as it is with strikes ).
Saved by a technicality on this one; the acting player can't use an OOT
master during his turn.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
First : What exactly does mean "attempts to use aggravated damage " ?
suppose both vampires are using hands at LONG range (no damage)
under some dawn operation or so : Can i use Rotschreck ?
2nd : About its meaning :
Garriot intended it to torporize the receiving vampire
Wotc ruling says the opposite.
The card says :
" Play when a MINION (...) against a VAMPIRE (...)
That VAMPIRE is put in torpor "
So I don't understand why Wotc went away from R.G meaning .
Some argues that played this way , the card would be rather
useless ; i do not agree :
1st use : Dawn operations at close range
2nd use : when vampire has either prevent damage or some
big damage strike .
3rd use : when minion attempts to BURN your vampire (
boosted flamethrower ... ) : better being sent
in torpor with all your blood than being burned.
(particularly so if you have Fame on him )
It would be best if there was some card that did what wotc
says Rot. does .
What about some " FUMBLE " card :
Master out-of-turn
Play on a minion you are engaged in combat with :
that minion suffers his own strike instead of you.
with some restriction like cost 2 blood or only usable
on a minion attempting to do agg. damage (stress fumble) or
"your own minion loose his strike due to the confusion".
3 rd : Dawn operation, close range , BOTH players use Rot. ;
what happens ?
Traditionnal ruling would say acting player use his
out-of-turn first (as it is with strikes ).
What does everybody think about all this ?
(Don't bother flaming me about my poor English : I know ! )