My group and I have always thought that Rotschreck is played on the VAmp
attempting to use aggrevated damage & the vamp attempting to use the
aggrevated damage is sent to topar with the Rotschreck card on him/her.
Recently, I read a post saying that the card is placed on the vampire
who is going to receive the aggrevated damage (opposing vamp).
What is the official ruleing?
Could someone please clarify!
Thanx
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Ah, the CHAOTIC FURY of a distant voice,
Michael Bist | "No Mr. Policeman, I didn't run over your
sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu | donut on purpose" :-p>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu (mike bist) wrote:
>
>My group and I have always thought that Rotschreck is played on the VAmp
>attempting to use aggrevated damage & the vamp attempting to use the
>aggrevated damage is sent to topar with the Rotschreck card on him/her.
>Recently, I read a post saying that the card is placed on the vampire
>who is going to receive the aggrevated damage (opposing vamp).
>
>What is the official ruleing?
>
>Could someone please clarify!
The card says:
"Play when a MINION attempts to use aggravated damage against a VAMPIRE.
whether successfully or not. Combat ends before damage is resolved. That
VAMPIRE is put in torpor, tapped, with this card on it. During the VAMPIRE'S
next untap phase, burn this card instread of untapping the VAMPIRE."
^
Note the extra r - their typo not mine :-)
Note that there is a MINION and a VAMPIRE. The MINION attempts to use aggravated
damage and the VAMPIRE goes to torpor, tapped, with Rotschreck on it.
Just my 2 cents.
Gary
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>
>The official ruling on Rotscheck is that it hoses a vampire attempting
>to deal aggravated damage.
>
>
>Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>
Then the official ruling is wrong! Read the card again Tom.
Gary
On 26 Jul 1995, Gary Schwartz wrote:
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
> >[ quoted text not captured ]> Then the official ruling is wrong! Read the card again Tom.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
Hi Gary,
Hey, Wotc is going to do what they're going to do, period.
(actually, I do agree with you on this....)
Algustas
*****That's Zed***** Maynard, Pulp Fiction
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>The official ruling on Rotscheck is that it hoses a vampire attempting
^^^^^
I like tom.
>to deal aggravated damage.
>Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Stu
--
This is the official account of the Let's Try This Player's, DramaTech's Own
Improvisational Comedy Troupe. Performing random acts of spontaneity at MaTech
We are dedicated to the discovery of theraputic humor through spontaneous
characterization and organized Chaos. We do not underestimate uses of Duck Tape
Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>> Then the official ruling is wrong! Read the card again Tom.
>> Gary>Hi Gary,
> Hey, Wotc is going to do what they're going to do, period.
>(actually, I do agree with you on this....)
> Algustas
I have found that there are a few rules that it makes more sense to
have everyone come to an aggreement on beforehand and then play that way
As with Magic there are millions of people trying to find a gap in the rules
and working hard to make combos that are deadly.
We use Malkavian Madness Network as a spawning a new minion phase for the
meth with a malk that would like to take an action. This eleviates all
sorts of problems about not using action cards and not letting the meth
who used to be having his turn use reactions.
Basically - any other meths minion action can be reacted to by the appropriate
meth i.e. you bleed me (A definately directed action), I can react. No matter
how it is that you came to be able to bleed me. I am being attacked and
if I can) i may react appropriately. the game has enough balance in it to
maintain the advantage in the favour of the person who plans better or gets
lucky as opposed to someone who finds and abuses loopholes.
So Rotschreck IMHO should hose the acting vamp rather completely.
Personally, if I am using agg dam. and my victim's meth has a Rot.
I feel very completely screwed. But I was person relying on agg dam when
I knew that Rot. is out there. si or No?
[ quoted text not captured ]
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>>The official ruling on Rotscheck is that it hoses a vampire attempting>to deal aggravated damage.
>
>
>Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>
Why has this rule changed?
In The Duelist #3, Rot. is in the Errata section as, "This card is placed
on the vampire who is about to receive aggravated damage,"(see page 79).
Also, in The Duelist #4, Rot. is in the Errata section again with the
exact same clarifying sentence, (see page 139).
Secondly, I thought Richard Garfield's idea behind Jyhad was that it
would use Vampire:The Masquerade's systems, culture, lexicon, etc. If
that is true, then Rot is done on the receiver because that is what Rot
is in VTM, (see pages 198-199, VTM 2nd ed. hard-cover printing).
The new ruling might be nice for victims of aggravated damage, but it
does not seem consistent with past "official rulings" nor the spirit of
Jyhad's creation.
Tyler Running Deer <trun...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Why has this rule changed?
>In The Duelist #3, Rot. is in the Errata section as, "This card is placed
>on the vampire who is about to receive aggravated damage,"(see page 79).
> Also, in The Duelist #4, Rot. is in the Errata section again with the
>exact same clarifying sentence, (see page 139).
The ruling on Rotschreck has not changed for several months. The errata
entry in Duelist #3 was definitely a mistake; I believe this was noted
later in either the Duelist, or the Duelist Companion. The entry in
Duelist #4 must have been a propogation of the error from #3.
[ quoted text not captured ]