[LSJ] Two Q's

1. If you take the Tomb with counters on it, via Disputed Territory, do the counters stay on it? We ruled yes. 2. Sins of the Cauchemar. I have two or more vampire's with superior auspex with at least one blood on them each. Another Meth's vampire acts. Can each of my vampires play this card during this one action? I am trying to remember a parallel card that this has been ruled on, but with no luck. Card Text Quoted: Card Title: Sins of the Cauchemar Blood: 1 blood Clan/Discip.: Auspex Card Type: Reaction Card Text: +1 intercept Put this card on the acting vampire. You still control this card. This reacting vampire gets +1 intercept when the vampire with this card attempts to bleed you. The vampire with this card can burn this card as a (D) action. As always, thanks in advance. Chris -- Chris Shorb, Monger of stuff Tammy Martin, Queen of the Eastern Marches, and damn good mom Alexander Shorb, little guy who could Shameless plug: <www.thethirdplanet.com>

Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote: > > 1. If you take the Tomb with counters on it, via Disputed > Territory, do the counters stay on it? We ruled yes. Yes. > 2. Sins of the Cauchemar. I have two or more vampire's > with superior auspex with at least one blood on them each. > Another Meth's vampire acts. Can each of my vampires play > this card during this one action? I am trying to remember a > parallel card that this has been ruled on, but with no luck. Yes. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

> > 2. Sins of the Cauchemar. I have two or more vampire's > > with superior auspex with at least one blood on them each. > > Another Meth's vampire acts. Can each of my vampires play > > this card during this one action? I am trying to remember a > > parallel card that this has been ruled on, but with no luck. > Yes. Wouldn't the acting vamp neet to have at least +2 stealth? Because wouldn't the first vamp then have enough intercept to block? Or would the first vamp not be required to actually block? a0 --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us -- Concrete Blonde

AgentZero wrote: > > > > 2. Sins of the Cauchemar. I have two or more vampire's > > > with superior auspex with at least one blood on them each. > > > Another Meth's vampire acts. Can each of my vampires play > > > this card during this one action? I am trying to remember a > > > parallel card that this has been ruled on, but with no luck. > > Yes. > > Wouldn't the acting vamp neet to have at least +2 stealth? > Because wouldn't the first vamp then have enough intercept to > block? Or would the first vamp not be required to actually > block? Sins of the C. (superior) only gives the intercept bonus vs. bleeds, and the action was not specified. But, yes, superior Sins doesn't require the vampire to attempt to block the action nor does it require that the action be a bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <xCb83.15$3N1....@newshog.newsread.com>, AgentZero <agen...@my-dejanews.com> writes <snip - Sins of the Cauchemar> >Wouldn't the acting vamp neet to have at least +2 stealth? >Because wouldn't the first vamp then have enough intercept to >block? Or would the first vamp not be required to actually >block? If I understand the card text correctly, the superior form of the card is used not when blocking but merely reacting. Two vampires could play it without having declared a block, and they would not get the intercept from the ability that Sins then grants due to not having blocked. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk