Rules Team Rulings 01-MAY-2002

Reversals of previous rulings and new errata contained herein go into effect for V:EKN Constructed Tournaments on May 31, 2002. CARD-SPECIFIC CLARIFICATIONS, RULINGS, AND ERRATA: CLARIFICATIONS: MALLEABLE VISAGE doesn't change the acting minion. The original acting ally is still the actor. Since he was blocked (a requirement for playing Malleable Visage), the No Repeat Actions rule (if it is being used) would restrict him from performing the same action again this turn. RULINGS: EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). (REVERSAL) If a vampire bleeds with FORCE OF WILL and the bleed action is canceled (via Change of Target, for example), then the acting vampire doesn't suffer the aggravated damage, since there is no combat. KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. (REVERSAL) The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land) occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat ends). If a vampire is stolen via SPIRIT MARIONETTE and then bleeds (as required) and the bleed action is canceled (via Change of Target, for example), the vampire still returns to its original controller, since that "next action" (the bleed that was canceled) is over. (REVERSAL) ERRATA: THE GRANDEST TRICK makes vampires unable to block the minion who played it, not the action in general (so if it is Masked, vampires can attempt to block the new acting vampire). MELANGE should refer to the "minion with this card" not "the vampire with this card" - it still functions when played on an acting ally. PSYCHOMACHIA is playable when an ally or younger vampire blocks (successfully) - not merely on the attempt. (So the NRA rule, if used, would "kick in" to prevent the vampire from attempting the same type of action again). GENERAL RULINGS: For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). (REVERSAL) Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after combat (see Majesty ruling above). If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g., Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting combat/etc.). An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is already a "to be resolved later" combat. Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means "if he uses this card's effect to do so". For example, Ian Forestal with an Infernal Familiar can play a card that requires, say, Necromancy (a Discipline he doesn't have) as if he had basic Necromancy. This ability is granted separately by both his own card text and the text on the Infernal Familiar. If he plays a card that requires Necromancy via the Familiar ("if he does so"), then the Infernal Familiar gets an additional investment counter, by card text. If he uses his special ability to play such a card, the Familiar doesn't. (REVERSAL) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It > allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a > Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. > It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, > Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). > (REVERSAL) Why this reversal? > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. > (REVERSAL) Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X? > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally > striking "as a vampire") Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this ruling meant to do something else? > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > (REVERSAL) So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc) > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after > combat (see Majesty ruling above). So does this mean that Psyche! et. al. can/will get around the damage inflicted by superior Catatonic Fear? > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g., > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting > combat/etc.). How/why did this come about? > An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is > already a "to be resolved later" combat. Minion A Bum's Rushes Minion B Minion B attempts to block Minion C plays Siren's Lure Combat ensues between A and B (due to the BR) Combat is ending Minion A plays Psyche! So this is now illegal? > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means > "if he uses this card's effect to do so". What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any. Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com... > EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. this is actually downgrading the card. I understand it will also simplify the game. So i guess it's okay =) > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. > (REVERSAL) it's only a way to make us put some Followers of Set in a Shambling hordes deck ? ;) > The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land) > occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat > ends). was that a problem ? > GENERAL RULINGS: > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > appropriate cards. so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of agg damage as if she was a vampire ? What's the point in wallpaperizing one of the few useful allies ? > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after > combat (see Majesty ruling above). Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of the kindred than ? if not, why ? > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". (snip blahblah) > For example, Ian Forestal with > an Infernal Familiar can play a card that requires, say, Necromancy (a > Discipline he doesn't have) as if he had basic Necromancy. (snip blahblah) > (REVERSAL) why not replace it by "Ian forrestal can use either his ability or the infernal minion's one when playing a card ? " creating a new rule only for uncle ian ? ;) keep up the good work =) reyda

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cd01820$0$14819$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > GENERAL RULINGS: > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > > appropriate cards. Does it mean that Rafastio Ghoul can play all cards as if she had superior thaumaturgy when tremere convocation is in play ? =D reyda

Sorrow wrote: > > > EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It > > allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a > > Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. > > It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, > > Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). > > (REVERSAL) > > Why this reversal? Consistency. Errata reduction. > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. > > (REVERSAL) > > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X? No. Gain X pool (See card text). > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the > > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects > > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a > > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the > > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally > > striking "as a vampire") > > Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no > such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this > ruling meant to do something else? Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however. > > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed > > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > > (REVERSAL) > > So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to > be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc) Yes. Yes. > > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the > > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to > > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after > > combat (see Majesty ruling above). > > So does this mean that Psyche! et. al. can/will get around the damage inflicted > by superior Catatonic Fear? Yes. > > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g., > > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the > > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting > > combat/etc.). > > How/why did this come about? It's a ruling now. Interested parties can examine the alternatives and/or google archives at their leisure. > > An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is > > already a "to be resolved later" combat. > > Minion A Bum's Rushes Minion B > Minion B attempts to block > Minion C plays Siren's Lure > Combat ensues between A and B (due to the BR) > Combat is ending > Minion A plays Psyche! > > So this is now illegal? Still illegal, yes. > > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to > > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect > > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided > > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has > > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the > > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means > > "if he uses this card's effect to do so". > > What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any. Any others that match the template. [ quoted text not captured ]

Reyda wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [snipping all but rules questions below ...] > so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only > valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of > agg damage as if she was a vampire ? Yes. > > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in > the > > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to > > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after > > combat (see Majesty ruling above). > > Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of > the kindred than ? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to > > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect > > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided > > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has > > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the > > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means > > "if he uses this card's effect to do so". > > What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any. A few other examples were given by Chris Berger in discussing this topic: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OjZ08.21449%24Tq.221398%40rwcrnsc54 [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com... > Reversals of previous rulings and new errata contained herein go into > effect for V:EKN Constructed Tournaments on May 31, 2002. > > CARD-SPECIFIC CLARIFICATIONS, RULINGS, AND ERRATA: > > RULINGS: > > EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It > allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a > Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. > It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, > Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). > (REVERSAL) Ah, I approve. :-) I forget, does Anneke get to override her Meth's previous "I don't block" decision? She says 'after others have declined or failed' which presumably means after other Methuselahs have declined or failed - does it mean that, for example, if your predator is attempting to bleed you, you decide not to block, all other Methuselahs then decide not to block, you get another opportunity to block with Anneke now that others have declined? > ERRATA: > > PSYCHOMACHIA is playable when an ally or younger vampire blocks > (successfully) - not merely on the attempt. (So the NRA rule, if used, > would "kick in" to prevent the vampire from attempting the same type of > action again). Why was this necessary? It made the card interesting that it didn't apply NRA taint to the playing vampire. :-) Also, with this errata, the Presence ability is worse than Change of Target (on two counts: one, it costs blood, and two, you have to have been blocked by an ally or younger vampire). (The only advantage [pre] Psychomachia has over Change of Target now is that if you're *not* using NRA you're not under same-action restrictions.) Designer intent? If so, I wish the designer had intended it to work the way it did before this errata. :-) > GENERAL RULINGS: > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally > striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby > to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > (REVERSAL) Hmmm. I thought Curt Adams' suggestion was much better - that allies should *never* have anything applied to them that's only supposed to apply to vampires, because when they have these abilities, it's only supposed to mean that they can do some things that vampires do, not that they *are* in any way vampires. So Burst of Sunlight should never do damage to an ally; an ally should never be able to call a vote (that requires a vampire to call); an ally should never be able to benefit from Ex Nihilo (the last one is still true). :-) > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to > end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after > combat (see Majesty ruling above). Oy. Why was this necessary? I can see the logic behind "if combat doesn't end" but "if a new combat is started" has no obvious reason to dissolve these effects. The first combat ended; things that happen "after that combat" can happen; a new combat can begin. I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either; don't all its effects - including the torporization - get applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing vampire eligible to be Psyche!d against. (Fast Reaction could still be playable if it was the blocking vampire that was the Rotschreck victim, but again I don't see why a Fast Reaction being played after resolution of Rotschreck should retroactively cancel Rotschreck's effects.) Josh wishes he were on the rules team ;-)

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Z8Uz8.452$6l1.4...@monger.newsread.com... [LSJ wrote] > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the > > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects > > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a > > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the > > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally > > striking "as a vampire") > > Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no > such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this > ruling meant to do something else? Ook, I didn't think of exactly what would happen here when I was writing my last message. So when Rafastio Ghoul plays Burst of Sunlight "as a vampire", it takes the damage as a vampire and is therefore sent to torpor by 1 point of aggravated damage? Since it's taking the damage "as a vampire" it's not under the "allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage" rule? I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if* they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach. Josh allies in torpor! cats and dogs, living together!

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > I forget, does Anneke get to override > her Meth's previous "I don't block" decision? She says Yes. But not the (final) "Anneke doesn't block" decision. > > ERRATA: > > > > PSYCHOMACHIA is playable when an ally or younger vampire blocks > > (successfully) - not merely on the attempt. (So the NRA rule, if used, > > would "kick in" to prevent the vampire from attempting the same type of > > action again). > > with this errata, the Presence ability is worse than Change of > Target (on two counts: one, it costs blood, and two, you have > to have been blocked by an ally or younger vampire). The *card* has an advantage over CoT in the DAI usage. The pre usage merely increases that advantage by way of versatility. > I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either; > don't all its effects - including the torporization - get > applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or > Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing No. Psyche! is playable when combat ends. Rotschreck ends combat before sending the vampire to torpor. Likewise FR. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. > > > (REVERSAL) > > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X? > No. Gain X pool (See card text). Understood. But this ruling seems to indicate that you can no use it on minions that cost X (whereas before I guess you couldn't). With that being the case, my question is if you do use it on such a minion, you get back what you paid (or the X cost of the minion)? > > Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no > > such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this > > ruling meant to do something else? > Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however. How is this possible? 2.3. Play Area The area in front of each player is divided into two regions: the uncontrolled region, which will start with four uncontrolled vampires dealt facedown from the crypt, and the controlled region, which is empty at the start of the game. The controlled region is further divided into two areas: the ready region and the torpor region. *Torpor is a special area for wounded vampires* (see Torpor, sec. 6.5). (emphesis mine) 6.5.1. Going into Torpor Vampires in torpor are placed in an area to one side of the uncontrolled region, called the torpor region(+). Any retainers, equipment and other cards on the vampire stay with the vampire when he goes to torpor. (+) A vampire going to torpor goes to the torpor region which is a special area for wounded vampires So how can an ally reside there? Also, every mention of torpor says "the vampire", "a vampire". If allies can now "go to torpor" you are creating this huge grey area that isn't afforded by the rules and is only vaguely addressed by this ruling. > > > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed > > > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > > > (REVERSAL) > > So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to > > be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc) > Yes. Yes. Ok. Though, I think the correct answer is "Yes. No. It can be either" according to how the question was phrased. The second excludes the first.. > > So does this mean that Psyche! et. al. can/will get around the damage inflicted > > by superior Catatonic Fear? > Yes. Ok > > > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g., > > > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the > > > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting > > > combat/etc.). > > How/why did this come about? > It's a ruling now. Interested parties can examine the alternatives and/or > google archives at their leisure. I'm an interested party. What specifically should I be looking for? > > > Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to > > > say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect > > > is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided > > > by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has > > > some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the > > > secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means > > > "if he uses this card's effect to do so". > > What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any. > Any others that match the template. Which are? That was the point of my question. I can't think of any that currently fit the template. Sorrow --- "Our fathers were our models for God. If they bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to be prepared for the possibility that God does not like you." - Tyler Durden

> > Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of > > the kindred than ? > Yes. So what does that do to the Illusions combat? Negate it? Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Ook, I didn't think of exactly what would happen here when I > was writing my last message. So when Rafastio Ghoul plays > Burst of Sunlight "as a vampire", it takes the damage as a > vampire and is therefore sent to torpor by 1 point of aggravated > damage? Since it's taking the damage "as a vampire" it's not > under the "allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage" rule? Right. > I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies > with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if* > they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach. Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire" would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in > > > the > > > > single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > > > > new combat is started. > > > Is it possible to play psyche or TheleTracking in response to Illusion of > > > the kindred than ? > > Yes. > > So what does that do to the Illusions combat? Negate it? Fizzle. See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. > > > > (REVERSAL) > > > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X? > > No. Gain X pool (See card text). > > Understood. But this ruling seems to indicate that you can no use it on minions that > cost X (whereas before I guess you couldn't). With that being the case, my question > is if you do use it on such a minion, you get back what you paid (or the X cost of the > minion)? If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool. If it cost X blood, then you get X pool. If it cost X pool, then you get X pool. The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X on card text. > > > Ok, the ally will take the damage but that is all, correct? There is no > > > such thing as Torpor for allies (unless I'm missing something). Or is this > > > ruling meant to do something else? > > Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however. > > How is this possible? Card text. Vampires can go to torpor. The ally is treated like a vampire. Once there, there's no effect/rule/whatever that indicates the ally should be burned or moved to the ready region or whatever, so he isn't. > > > > and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby to call a vote (allowed > > > > if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > > > > (REVERSAL) > > > So the Herald can call a vote? If so, it can be a PA? Or does it have to > > > be a vote already on the table (ie, Anarch Revolt, etc) > > Yes. Yes. > > Ok. Though, I think the correct answer is "Yes. No. It can be either" according > to how the question was phrased. The second excludes the first.. Can the Herald call a vote? Yes. It can be a PA? Yes. > > > > If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g., > > > > Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the > > > > effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting > > > > combat/etc.). > > > How/why did this come about? > > It's a ruling now. Interested parties can examine the alternatives and/or > > google archives at their leisure. > > I'm an interested party. What specifically should I be looking for? Whatever you're interested in. Maybe Undead Persistence. Maybe Siren's Lure. That's up to you. > > > What other cards does this affect? I'm at a loss to think of any. > > Any others that match the template. > > Which are? That was the point of my question. I can't think of any that currently > fit the template. See Chris Berger's post cited by me elsewhere in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD02385...@white-wolf.com... > Reyda wrote: > > > > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3cd01820$0$14819$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > > > > > GENERAL RULINGS: > > > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > > > > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > > > > appropriate cards. > > > > Does it mean that Rafastio Ghoul can play all cards as if she had superior > > thaumaturgy when tremere convocation is in play ? =D > > No. > The reason for this, I believe, is that the Ghoul must choose a level of the card before it is played. It can only play the inferior level as though it were a vampire. It is not treated "as a vampire" until it plays the card, at which point it has already chosen what level to play it at. As it plays the card, it would seem that it gains the ability to play it at superior, but it's too late.

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Reyda wrote: > > > Does it mean that Rafastio Ghoul can play all cards as if she had superior > > > thaumaturgy when tremere convocation is in play ? =D > > > > No. > > > The reason for this, I believe, is that the Ghoul must choose a level of the > card before it is played. It can only play the inferior level as though it > were a vampire. It is not treated "as a vampire" until it plays the card, at > which point it has already chosen what level to play it at. As it plays the > card, it would seem that it gains the ability to play it at superior, but it's > too late. Correct. Clarification on Talaq, from the web page, provides more reasoning: While Talaq may play cards that require disciplines (Quietus or Thaumaturgy), he doesn't actually have those disciplines. He doesn't benefit from Tremere Convocation, for example. Similar to Ian Forestal's special ability. [LSJ 19980303] [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > > KHOBAR TOWERS will take X as the blood cost or pool cost of an ally. > > > > > (REVERSAL) > > > > Ok, so what does that mean? In tapping KT, you'll get what you paid for X? > > > No. Gain X pool (See card text). > > > > Understood. But this ruling seems to indicate that you can no use it on minions that > > cost X (whereas before I guess you couldn't). With that being the case, my question > > is if you do use it on such a minion, you get back what you paid (or the X cost of the > > minion)? > > If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool. > If it cost X blood, then you get X pool. > If it cost X pool, then you get X pool. > > The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X > on card text. This is enormous !!! Now, a Setite Shmabling Hordes / Puppeteer deck is among the most powerful things ! Let's just say we put in the setites with Nec, the Giovanni with Obf, and here we can summon Shambling Hordes and Puppeteers and let them do their stuff ; of course we have a Path of Bone, a Charisma and a Tower of London in (after a while), so the Hordes cost 1 and give U one pool ; When they get tired, you burn them through the Khobar Towers, and gain 3 more pool !!! The Puppeteers only gain you a total of 2, for no cost, and can come in handy of course. This makes the Khobar Towers one of the most powerful locations in the game, I'm not sure the Setites needed that already (there were two in the finals of my last tournament, they can already mix with many clans and bloodlines... In other words, Setites rule !!). Can we know what motivated this change in ruling ? -- Yours, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel) http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band) news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

> so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only > valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of > agg damage as if she was a vampire ? So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ?

[ quoted text not captured ] Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". [ quoted text not captured ]

> > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced in the future to get an ally out of torpor? Man, talk about unintuitive... Sorrow --- "No, you're insane" -Tyler Durden

Sorrow wrote: > > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". > > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced > in the future to get an ally out of torpor? Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD02DCC...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies > > with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if* > > they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach. > > Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire" > would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google. Oh, I've seen them. :-) I found Curt Adams' take on the situation pretty convincing: "Something is awry with the game mechanics of these "as a vampire" cards. This is supposed to model minions who can create effects similar to those of vampires with disciplines even though they're not vampires and don't actually have the disciplines. In no present case is the minion "slumming" as a vampire - they should *never* get the peculiar advantages and disadvantages of vampires during the process of playing a card. There should be no "when do they go back to being an ally" decision because they should never stop in the first place. If some Tremeresque magus had an ability to actually become a vampire for the duration of an action, it should need explicit text a la Grandest Trick." "Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ, the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive." [CURT 11-Feb-2002] If it's necessary for allies to be unable to play cards that reference "this vampire" for this to be possible, that's fine with me. It's nice that Herald of Topheth can play Disarm, but he probably *shouldn't* be able to play Charming Lobby, Awe, and Voter Captivation. Josh aweful

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >> I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies >> with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if* >> they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach. >Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire" >would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google. The "as if" should modify the card, not the minion. I.e. replace "this vampire" with "this minion" on the card. That's much closer to what's "supposed" to be going on - Talaq isn't really using Quietus, he's using some life-entropy rote which, if there were a printed card for it, would look like the appropriately modified Quietus card. In addition to creating all these complicated issues about torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't be rescued. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD02D54...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > ERRATA: > > > > > > PSYCHOMACHIA > > The *card* has an advantage over CoT in the DAI usage. The pre > usage merely increases that advantage by way of versatility. But you'd never use it in a deck that wasn't using the [DAI] usage, now. It was an interesting effect for [pre] before this ruling. With a cost of 1 blood, I don't think being able to cycle it on unsuccessful blocks made the card overpowered at either Daimoinon level, either. It seems to inadvisably (IMO) de-parallel the card from Call of the Hungry Dead and Elder Impersonation, too - those are playable "when a minion is attempting to block", because "when a minion has successfully blocked" is (has been) too late to make the block fail. > > I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either; > > don't all its effects - including the torporization - get > > applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or > > Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing > > No. Psyche! is playable when combat ends. Rotschreck ends > combat before sending the vampire to torpor. Likewise FR. Eccch. I don't like having other cards played in the middle of one card's resolution. Rotschreck shouldn't be interruptible partway through any more than diablerie is. (I realize this would make it impossible to Disarm a vampire if Rotschreck is played; that's fine by me. It'd be more consistent with the general rule that non-strike or action cards have all their effects applied before any other effect can intervene.) Josh with liberty and justice for all

CurtAdams wrote: > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are There are no complicated rules about torporized minions nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. The ally is always an ally. The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, by explicit card text. > absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if > a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the > using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't > be rescued. The RPG'ers have already "gone nuts" over the ability to wear two Flak Jackets as well. So? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced > > in the future to get an ally out of torpor? > Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence > to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned > instead. That would be ideal. I don't have a problem with the fact that an ally takes the damage as aggravated thus forcing the trip to what would otherwise be torpor. However, torpor applies only to vamps. Historically in the CCG and also in the RPG. It is just counter-intuitive otherwise -- a mortal in a state that is really only applicable to vampires. > I don't think it'll come to that, however. It really should. Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:aapdgu$iif$1...@wanadoo.fr... > > > [Khobar Towers ruling] > > This is enormous !!! Now, a Setite Shmabling Hordes / Puppeteer deck is > among the most powerful things ! Let's just say we put in the setites with > Nec, the Giovanni with Obf, and here we can summon Shambling Hordes and > Puppeteers and let them do their stuff ; of course we have a Path of Bone, a > Charisma and a Tower of London in (after a while), so the Hordes cost 1 and > give U one pool ; When they get tired, you burn them through the Khobar > Towers, and gain 3 more pool !!! The Puppeteers only gain you a total of 2, > for no cost, and can come in handy of course. > > This makes the Khobar Towers one of the most powerful locations in the game, > I'm not sure the Setites needed that already (there were two in the finals > of my last tournament, they can already mix with many clans and > bloodlines... In other words, Setites rule !!). > Umm... I think you're overstating just a bit here. Such a deck is, first off, a wacky combo deck, and will be very difficult to put together. Not that I won't try, because it seems fun as hell, and could actually be strong, but not all that strong. For something very similar, you could make a FoS/Prince deck wherein you create Third Traditions for 1 blood, then burn them with Khobar Towers. Or you could just play !Tor and gain 2 pool in an action while only wasting one card, not waiting until your untap for the pool gain, and not requiring a semi-expensive master card to make it work. > Can we know what motivated this change in ruling ? > I assume it has to do with card text. Khobar Towers gives you pool equal to the cost of the ally. The cost of Shambling Hordes is 3. I am surprised it was ever ruled otherwise.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD0440A...@white-wolf.com... > Sorrow wrote: > > > > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it > > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? > > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. > > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". > > > > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced > > in the future to get an ally out of torpor? > > Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence > to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned > instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however. > If the ally is always an ally as you said previously, then why would it go to torpor at all? Yes, the ally (Rafastio Ghoul in this case or Talaq) play Burst of Sunlight as a vampire, but when the damage from that strike actually resolves, he's back to being an ally. I can see them acting "as a vampire" when choosing the strike, but since the ally is always an ally, wouldn't it be an ally when the strike actually resolves? Just curious as it seems a bit corner-case of a situation (maybe not...there just aren't many Ally's playing burst in our playgroup). Jon

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aapgjb$cuf88$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ, > the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to > do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced > ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities > because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive." > [CURT 11-Feb-2002] > Umm... an ally that can play Auspex cards can still use Enhanced Senses during a Daring the Dawn, no? It should go something like this: 1) Vampire acts, dares the dawn. 2) Ally attempts to block, then plays Enhanced Senses, "as a vampire." 3) During play of Enhanced Senses, ally is treated as a vampire and is unable to block. 4) After Enhanced Senses has been played, ally is no longer treated as a vampire, but still has +2 intercept. ???

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020501154629...@mb-fx.aol.com... > vte...@white-wolf.com writes: > > the RPGer's are > absolutely going to have steam come out their ears if > a Correspondance-based sunbeam gating causes the > using mage to go into a vampiric torpor from which she can't > be rescued. > Paradox spirits are a bitch, eh?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:yhYz8.34416$ao1.8801@rwcrnsc54... [ quoted text not captured ] Heh. That's exactly what I said during the thread I was quoting from, but no. The ally can't play Enhanced Senses "as a vampire" because "as a vampire" it's not eligible to block a Daring the Dawn action. You can't play intercept to block an action you're not allowed to try to block. Josh inauspicious

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aapl4c$c8o8r$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:yhYz8.34416$ao1.8801@rwcrnsc54... > > > > > "Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ, > > > the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to > > > do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced > > > ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities > > > because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive." > > > [CURT 11-Feb-2002] > > > > > Umm... an ally that can play Auspex cards can still use Enhanced Senses > during > > a Daring the Dawn, no? It should go something like this: > > > > Heh. That's exactly what I said during the thread I was > quoting from, but no. The ally can't play Enhanced Senses > "as a vampire" because "as a vampire" it's not eligible to > block a Daring the Dawn action. You can't play intercept to > block an action you're not allowed to try to block. > But you aren't "not allowed" to block the action until you play the Enhanced Senses. So, technically, I think the world should explode in a puff of paradox, and the action should fail.

>If it cost 4 blood, then you get 4 pool. >If it cost X blood, then you get X pool. >If it cost X pool, then you get X pool. > >The ruling allows blood costs (not just pool costs) to be considered for X >on card text. Then for the sake of consistency, shouldn't Kindred Segregation cause controllers of Couriers or Shambling Hordes to pay the cost (in something)? It seems a little contradictory for Khobar Towers to allow one to gain the cost of an ally (who costs blood) but Kindred Segregation doesn't have one pay the cost of any ally (who costs blood)... Halcyan 2

>EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It >allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a >Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. >It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, >Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). >(REVERSAL) Let's just hope that the Camarilla version of Eagle's Sight specifically includes a clause letting it block after "I don't block" to clear things up. Then we don't have errata (or reversals), the card can stay the same as it always has been, *and* we'll have a latest printing to back it all up... >For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are >treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the >appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the >resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects >granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a >card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the >resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally >striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby >to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). >(REVERSAL) Um...this is giving me a really nasty headache. I'll respond about it some other time. >Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the >single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a >new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or >Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to >end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after >combat (see Majesty ruling above). My god! Psyche! is really getting powerful here! >If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g., >Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the >effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting >combat/etc.). Huh? So what makes S:CE + something else different? A Catatonic Fear (effect) resolves (the S:CE part) and sets up an effect to be resolved later (1 damage). Why is this category of effects canceled by interruptions while other category of effects aren't? It seems very inconsistent to do so. >Some cards grant a minion the option of doing something and then go on to >say that some other effect will occur "if he does so". The second effect >is only applied if the minion uses the effect (the first effect) provided >by the card. If he does the effect, but doesn't use the card (i.e., he has >some additional ability which allows him to do the same effect), then the >secondary effect of the card doesn't occur. That is, "if he does so" means >"if he uses this card's effect to do so". For example, Ian Forestal with >an Infernal Familiar can play a card that requires, say, Necromancy (a >Discipline he doesn't have) as if he had basic Necromancy. This ability >is granted separately by both his own card text and the text on the >Infernal Familiar. If he plays a card that requires Necromancy via the >Familiar ("if he does so"), then the Infernal Familiar gets an additional >investment counter, by card text. If he uses his special ability to play >such a card, the Familiar doesn't. (REVERSAL) While most of the rulings thus far really suck @ss IMHO (no offense! just me being bitter and annoyed), I do have to admit that this is a good one. It makes a great deal of logical sense and deals with really weird corner-case scenarios (i.e. the Mental Patient using a Lucky Blow during a Dawn Operation). So at least congrats for this ruling! =) Halcyan 2

> > Sorrow wrote: > > > > > > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or > does it > > > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? > > > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to > torpor. > > > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". > > > > > > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something > introduced > > > in the future to get an ally out of torpor? > > > > Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a > sentence > > to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned > > instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however. > > > If the ally is always an ally as you said previously, then why would it go > to torpor at all? I agree with Jon : it is inconsistent, and not only for "RPGers", that an ally should go to torpor. If a vampire becoming an ally with The Grandest Trick can go outside by day and be unblockable, why should a Burst of Sunlight harm a human (or wraith, or whatever) ally ? Granted, the stackable Jackets are not logical, no more than a Rock Cat using a Zip Gun, but is it a reason to add one more illogical ruling ? But if you (meaning the WW staff) really rule that an ally taking aggravated damage is burned, it should be stated in the rules !! But really, it will be one more reason never to play allies (they are already very expensive for what they do, and vulnerable to many things). Games with allies are interesting, and not going to torpor (or burning) when taking aggravated damage is one of their interests. Please examine that point again and reconsider this ruling ! [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com>... > > GENERAL RULINGS: > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally > striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby > to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > (REVERSAL) So if a Rafastio Ghoul strikes with Burst of Sunlight and the opponent dodges, the Rafastio ghoul will be in torpor with 2 life?

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:aapqvr$lv5$1...@wanadoo.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] I also agree. I have a problem with allies going to torpor, it dosen't make sense to me, it also negates one of the advantages of being an ally: allies treat agg damage as normal. Jon also made a very valid point, sure, the ally is a vampire when, say, it plays Burst of Sunlight but it's an ally when BoS is resolved. For bizarre corner cases where an ally goes to torpor whilst playing a card it should just burn. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip] > > > I don't understand how Rotschreck can be nullified, either; > > > don't all its effects - including the torporization - get > > > applied before anyone becomes eligible to play Psyche! or > > > Fast Reaction? And once that's happened, there's no opposing > > > > No. Psyche! is playable when combat ends. Rotschreck ends > > combat before sending the vampire to torpor. Likewise FR. > > Eccch. I don't like having other cards played in the middle of > one card's resolution. Rotschreck shouldn't be interruptible > partway through any more than diablerie is. (I realize this > would make it impossible to Disarm a vampire if Rotschreck is > played; that's fine by me. It'd be more consistent with the > general rule that non-strike or action cards have all their > effects applied before any other effect can intervene.) I don't like this one either. Cards interrupting the resolution of other cards goes down the track of "that other card game". Unfotunately I think the reason this ruling was made was that it prevents incredibly problematic and confusing scenarios from coming up.

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<aapqvr$lv5$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > > > Sorrow wrote: > > But if you (meaning the WW staff) really rule that an ally taking aggravated > damage is burned, it should be stated in the rules !! There is no need as there is no such "rule" existing. The "ruling" is based on "specific card text" (not a new rule) and the effects applied due to it, ie. A card that says an ally is to be treated as a vampire should be handled in this particular manner. Allies still treat agg. dmg. as normal (barring the aforementioned cardtext). At least that's my interpretation of what has gone down here...talk about shake up! I know it rocked my world! ;) -Scrote [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD0440A...@white-wolf.com>... > Sorrow wrote: > > > > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it > > > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? > > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. > > > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". > > > > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced > > in the future to get an ally out of torpor? > > Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence > to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned > instead. I don't think it'll come to that, however. What about the following: A vampire blocks a Rafastio Ghoul. The Ghoul plays any aggravated damage causing Thaumaturgy strike, and is now considered a vampire. The opposing player plays Roteschreck, and sends the Ghoul to torpor (Roteschreck interupts the resolution of the card, and would seem to take place during the time the ally is a "vampire"). Sending an ally to torpor with Roteschreck doesn't seem right at all. The intention of "played as a vampire" cards is that they have powers similar to those of vampires (in the case of Ghouled Street Thug, exactly the same), but are not, themselves, vampires. I don't see why they can't be treated as vampires in regards to requirements (a card that says "this vampire"), but in no other way (going to torpor, unless the card says "this vampire goes to torpor" like Day Operation). Surely that is less confusing than making them transform into vampires temporarily. While I understand things like Amaranth and Ritual of the Bitter Rose couldn't be played when in combat with an ally that turns into a vampire for part of the action, I can see it's going to be really confusing to explain that to other players. JSpektr

Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:s8Zz8.5898$xv1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... [ quoted text not captured ] All actions shall fail while allies are not allowed to block because it is too early in the morning. I'm not sure what this means for my "Snakes for Breakfast" Abbat Kindred pre-breakfast bleed deck. Maybe it's an excuse to print a card such as this: Call a Spade a Spade Master no cost Place this card on a ready non-vampire minion you control. This minion is now not considered a vampire. What do you think? Maybe it should cost pool to have such a dramatic effect?

> Sending an ally to torpor with Roteschreck doesn't seem right at all. > The intention of "played as a vampire" cards is that they have powers > similar to those of vampires (in the case of Ghouled Street Thug, > exactly the same), but are not, themselves, vampires. Agreed. Being able to use Potence cards just means the ally is very strong, not that he's a vampire. > I don't see why they can't be treated as vampires in regards to > requirements (a card that says "this vampire"), but in no other way > (going to torpor, unless the card says "this vampire goes to torpor" > like Day Operation). Surely that is less confusing than making them > transform into vampires temporarily. Agreed. And we're getting (once more ?) into a rule that nobody will interpret this way except if they read these messages or play in tournaments ; and that, IMNSHO, is not good at all. I've seen players becoming disgusted of the game because of multiple erratas, this should happen as less frequently as possible, especially on recent cards that don't need to be errated. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > Sorrow wrote: > > > > But if you (meaning the WW staff) really rule that an ally taking aggravated > > damage is burned, it should be stated in the rules !! > > There is no need as there is no such "rule" existing. The "ruling" is > based on "specific card text" (not a new rule) and the effects applied > due to it, ie. A card that says an ally is to be treated as a vampire > should be handled in this particular manner. Allies still treat agg. > dmg. as normal (barring the aforementioned cardtext). Yes, I know. I was pushing the logic to its end. But it's even worse to make a rule like "if any ally takes aggravated damage while it is considered as a vampire, it will burn". This is illogical, not needed for game balance, and nobody will know about this rule outside of tournaments anyway. While I am against the fact that you can take pool back from an ally costing blood with the Khobar because of game balance, I understand this new ruling for one simple reason : it is the way everybody understood card text, and I think it is important that players who don't have access to this forum should play as the ones who do (just imagine a guy who arrives to a tournament with a deck based on a mistake he couldn't know about : he will never come to a tournament again !!). With this rule about allies, it will be the opposite effect. Not good, says I. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Methuselahs don't have blood. Kindred Segregation requires the *Methuselah* to repay the cost. Kobar Towers gives the Methuselah X pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

jspektr wrote: > A vampire blocks a Rafastio Ghoul. The Ghoul plays any aggravated > damage causing Thaumaturgy strike, and is now considered a vampire. Incorrect. He plays the strike card "as a vampire". He is not a vampire. > The opposing player plays Roteschreck, and sends the Ghoul to torpor > (Roteschreck interupts the resolution of the card, and would seem to > take place during the time the ally is a "vampire"). Not legal. The ally is not a vampire for purposes of Rotschreck (i.e., there's no mechanism to make Rotschreck treat the ally as a vampire). [ quoted text not captured ]

Shaun McIsaac wrote: > So if a Rafastio Ghoul strikes with Burst of Sunlight and the opponent > dodges, the Rafastio ghoul will be in torpor with 2 life? Yes, unless he prevents the damage (assuming he started with 2 life). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD03F62...@white-wolf.com>... > Orpheus wrote: > > > > > so a Rafastio ghoul will suffer 1 agg from a Burst of sunlight (the only > > > valid combo for plyaing rafastio) ... So what ? she will take one point of > > > agg damage as if she was a vampire ? > > > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? > > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". There are two major things, in my mind, that have made this game great. The first is its' intuitive, logical design. V:tes is relatively easy to grasp, yet complex enough to allow nearly endless variety in games. The second is the story. I think that all will agree that this game could not have come nearly as far as it has without the roleplaying element. The key to game design, as far as i am concerned, is maintaining a comfortable balance between these two necessary things. In many cases, if the story were allowed to be compromised, our game would benefit in becoming a more logical process, but less people would be interested in playing. And sometimes, in an effort to be more forthright with the rules, we tread on certain story aspects. Here's my issue: I don't really see why its necessary to have roleplaying inconsistencies, when rules are easily clarified in other ways. For example, a scenario where a Rafastio ghoul is being removed from the game by exposure to sunlight invites ridicule. I always thought that when an ally says 'may use tha/pot/pre as a vampire' what it meant was 'may use tha/pot/pre as a vampire (would)', not 'may use tha/pot/pre as if it were a vampire'. The distinction is slight, but it's enough to rend holes in the storyline's credibility. Under the first reading of the card, the ghoul would not need to go to torpor. Being that one of our main goals as players is to attract more players, I think that it is important to maintain the integrity of the roleplaying backstory -- every bit as important as simplifying and clarifying the rules. And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are allowed to wear two Flak Jackets. distraught - Jason

"torien" <tori...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c1b258d2.02050...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD03F62...@white-wolf.com>... <snip> > And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are > allowed to wear two Flak Jackets. Perhaps an errata? Minions get -1 stealth per additional Flak Jacket after the first. Hard to miss something the size of the Ghostbusters Marshmellow monster - covered in flak jackets! Jazzbeaux > > distraught - > Jason

On 2 May 2002 05:54:27 -0700, torien wrote: >And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are >allowed to wear two Flak Jackets. I agree with what you say about the "as if" issue but don't see that Flak Jackets are such a big deal. In the real world, you could wear two jackets by putting an XXXL size on top of a normal one. They don't have sleeves, you see - that's the main thing that makes wearing two jackets difficult. In the RPG, I'd say that you'd get an extra level of armour class - the equivalent of full riot gear for the covered parts of the body - but would suffer the corresponding encumbrance penalty. Andrew

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020501182854...@mb-mq.aol.com... [LSJ wrote] > >EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It > >allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a > >Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. > >It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, > >Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). > >(REVERSAL) > > > Let's just hope that the Camarilla version of Eagle's Sight specifically > includes a clause letting it block after "I don't block" to clear things up. > Then we don't have errata (or reversals), the card can stay the same as it > always has been, *and* we'll have a latest printing to back it all up... Well, actually, then we'd have a reversal and a re-reversal by cardtext migration. I really don't think that would be a good thing, now that this ruling has been given. :-) Plus there's no reason (IMO) that Eagle's Sight *should* allow an "I don't block" decision to become non-final. It never made sense by card text and as far as I can tell it's not especially "in-theme" for the card. Josh double twist with a re-re-reversal: 9.5

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD0043D...@white-wolf.com>... >Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect. Oh Psyche! Finally, an effective countermeasure to Rotschreck. Excellent move. Now I have to update my decks and my Top 10 list. -Ben Swainbank

CurtAdams wrote: > vte...@white-wolf.com writes: > > >> I really don't think this is a good idea. Making all the allies > >> with discipline-playing abilities able to play cards "as *if* > >> they were vampires" strikes me as a much more sensible approach. > > >Then all discipline-requiring cards that reference "this vampire" > >would have no effect. See the discussions on this topic on Google. > > The "as if" should modify the card, not the minion. I.e. > replace "this vampire" with "this minion" on the card. That's > much closer to what's "supposed" to be going on - Talaq isn't > really using Quietus, he's using some life-entropy rote > which, if there were a printed card for it, would look like > the appropriately modified Quietus card. Talaq is not a good example here, since he actually has Quietus, because he is a human with vampiric Disciplines. He was an Assamite turned into a human by a powerful mage. TALAQ DISCIPLINES: Auspex 1, Celerity 2, Chimerstry 2, Fortitude 1, Obfuscate 2, Presence 5, Quietus 3, Thaumaturgy 3. Greetings, Damnans

[ quoted text not captured ] Talaq "here" doesn't have Quiteus. He's an ally. He can play cards that require Quietus, but he doesn't have Quietus: Talaq, The Immortal - Ally - 3 Pool Unique !-mage-! with 3 life. <0 strength>, 0 bleed. <Talaq may strike for 1R damage.> Talaq may play cards that require basic Quietus [qui] or basic Thaumaturgy [tha] as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life. Talaq gets an optional maneuver each combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > CurtAdams wrote: > > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about > > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn > > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in > > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are > > There are no complicated rules about torporized minions > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. > > The ally is always an ally. > > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, > by explicit card text. Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?: Rafastio Ghoul Ghoul with 2 life. 1 bleed, 1 strength. Rafastio Ghoul can play cards requiring basic Thaumaturgy. Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life instead. Note that "as a vampire with a capacity of 3" has been removed from that card's text. Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred) Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > CurtAdams wrote: > > > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about > > > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn > > > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in > > > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are > > > > There are no complicated rules about torporized minions > > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. > > > > The ally is always an ally. > > > > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, > > by explicit card text. > > Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the > ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?: > [...] > Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to > play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred) Possibly. But that would be errata, and contrary to designer intent in many cases. Cards requiring disciplines require vampires by default. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD15F26...@white-wolf.com... > Damnans wrote: > > Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the > > ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?: > > [...] > > Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to > > play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred) > > Possibly. But that would be errata, and contrary to designer intent > in many cases. Cards requiring disciplines require vampires by default. It seems to me like it would be *so* many times cleaner than the current situation that it'd still be better. Errata to a bunch of cards is (IMO) no worse than a "ruling" affecting the same bunch of cards that affects how they work as much as errata would have. Josh stupid allies anyway

LSJ wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > CurtAdams wrote: > > > > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about > > > > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn > > > > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in > > > > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are > > > > > > There are no complicated rules about torporized minions > > > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. > > > > > > The ally is always an ally. > > > > > > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, > > > by explicit card text. > > > > Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the > > ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?: > > [...] > > Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to > > play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred) > > Possibly. But that would be errata, and contrary to designer intent > in many cases. Cards requiring disciplines require vampires by default. Then the designer intent is making the game more complicated. Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). Greetings, Damnans

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] He, he... ;-) Sorry, I was just talking about the Talaq in the RPG. Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 01 May 2002 15:37:46 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> said: LSJ> Sorrow wrote: >> >> > > So what happens to it ? I mean, how could an ally be in torpor ? Or does it >> > > just treat the aggravated damage as normal damage ? >> > Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to torpor. >> > Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire". >> >> Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be >> something introduced in the future to get an ally out of torpor? LSJ> Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add LSJ> a sentence to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to LSJ> torpor, it is burned instead. I don't think it'll come to that, LSJ> however. There is (yet another) facet to this: if allies can go to torpor, that can be a significant minus at times. Consider a deck that has multiple copies of a unique ally. If copy #1 gets put into torpor, the deck is screwed - you can't bring out copy #2 since self-contesting is not allowed, and I can't figure out any easy way to get rid of the ally in torpor (Khobar Towers works, of course). //Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, since the ruling only affects cards that the ally chooses to play, this "deck screwing" is easily avoided - the player can merely not play cards whose effects will send the hapless ally to torpor. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however. What kind of crack are you smoking? This is the most fucking ludicrous departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form. If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That statement is just plain stupid. Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

LSJ wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a > vampire. For example? Besides, the game would hardly be affected by the rule I suggest. The way you have stated allies should play Disciplines makes some allies more usefull, and others less usefull, but it leads the game into a non-intuitive chaos of micro rules. Greetings, Damnans

Noal McDonald wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Allies can go to torpor just fine. Rescuing them is quite difficult, however. > > What kind of crack are you smoking? This is the most [bleep] ludicrous > departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's > worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form. See also table talk. > If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look > forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That > statement is just plain stupid. It's no more or less stupid as "allies can play cards requiring disciplines" (and is a by-product of that). Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire. For those not keeping up, this came up in January 2000 re: Reform Body and Shadow Court Satyr. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > > > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > > > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). > > > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a > > vampire. > > For example? Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood, says "this vampire", etc. > Besides, the game would hardly be affected by the rule I suggest. Glad to see you've been able to analyze all the ramifications in such a complex game in such a short time. [ quoted text not captured ]

tori...@hotmail.com writes: > And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are >allowed to wear two Flak Jackets. Why? Do you think it's impossible for a superhumanly strong individual to wear body armor adequate to stop a .44? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

LSJ wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > Damnans wrote: > > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > > > > > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers > > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > > > > > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only > > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). > > > > > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring > > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a > > > vampire. > > > > For example? > > Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood, Current texts on allies solve this problem: "Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life instead." Or the blood drop on a card could simply mean both blood and life cost. > says "this vampire", etc. If a Discipline card requires a vampire to play, it means that it can ONLY be played by a vampire, so allies could not play them. What's the problem? > > Besides, the game would hardly be affected by the rule I suggest. > > Glad to see you've been able to analyze all the ramifications in > such a complex game in such a short time. I might have gone too far with my assumptions, but IMHO I think I am trying to improve the game with arguments and new ideas. Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Damnans wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Damnans wrote: > > > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > > > > > > > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers > > > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > > > > > > > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only > > > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). > > > > > > > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring > > > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a > > > > vampire. > > > > > > For example? > > > > Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood, > > Current texts on allies solve this problem: > > "Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life > instead." > > Or the blood drop on a card could simply mean both blood and life cost. I thought you were offering an alternative where allies "had" disciplines instead of card text. If you're keeping all the text *and* adding disciplines to allies, what's the point? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Ook, I didn't think of exactly what would happen here when I > > was writing my last message. So when Rafastio Ghoul plays > > Burst of Sunlight "as a vampire", it takes the damage as a > > vampire and is therefore sent to torpor by 1 point of aggravated > > damage? Since it's taking the damage "as a vampire" it's not > > under the "allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage" rule? > > Right. However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow "as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight "as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen: The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage, sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor. The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage. Is this right? - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Ben Peal wrote: > However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow > "as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight > "as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen: > > The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage, > sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor. > > The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > Damnans wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers > > > > > > (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > > > > > > > > > > > > Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only > > > > > > usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). > > > > > > > > > > Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring > > > > > effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a > > > > > vampire. > > > > > > > > For example? > > > > > > Anything that costs blood, self-burns blood, gains blood, > > > > Current texts on allies solve this problem: > > > > "Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life > > instead." > > > > Or the blood drop on a card could simply mean both blood and life cost. > > I thought you were offering an alternative where allies "had" disciplines > instead of card text. This could be a good idea, but that was not what I was suggesting. > If you're keeping all the text *and* adding disciplines > to allies, what's the point? The point is that allies should not play Discipline cards "as a vampire" but "as an ally", since the current "as a vampire" text causes confusion. It's obvious that an ally is not a vampire (and that an ally does not become a vampires while playing a Discipline card). The current rules treat allies as if they were vampires (for Discipline card playing purposes), "ignoring" the fact that they have their own merits and flaws as allies, and that changing this creates some undesirable paradoxes (as some one else has already stated) and confusion. I understand this is a CARD GAME, governed by its own rules, but treating allies as vampires (at least temporarily) contradicts the "spirit" of the RPG on which V:TES is based. How can an ally enter torpor? According to the current rules, it's perfectly legal, but according to "common sense" it is not at all. Greetings, Damnans

>What kind of crack are you smoking? This is the most fucking ludicrous >departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's >worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form. > >If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look >forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That >statement is just plain stupid. LOL. Maybe it's time for the NJL to secede again or somethin'? =P Halcyan 2

> > If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look > > forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That > > statement is just plain stupid. > > It's no more or less stupid as "allies can play cards requiring disciplines" > (and is a by-product of that). Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire. As stated some place else in this discussion, I have to disagree : use a discipline like a vampire is just a way to simulate that an ally can be very strong, charismatic, or whatever, and has nothing to do with actually becoming a vampire (not the reverse of The Grandest Trick). Although I disagree with the tone of Noal, I agree with the contents : this is illogical, and can have dire consequences on the view players have opf the game. If it came up again because of the Herald of Tothep, then let's errate him, not all the allies !!! -- Yours, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel) http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band) news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

> > > 1) Vampire acts, dares the dawn. > > > 2) Ally attempts to block, then plays Enhanced Senses, "as a vampire." > > > 3) During play of Enhanced Senses, ally is treated as a vampire and is > > unable > > > to block. > > > 4) After Enhanced Senses has been played, ally is no longer treated as a > > > vampire, but still has +2 intercept. > > > > Heh. That's exactly what I said during the thread I was > > quoting from, but no. The ally can't play Enhanced Senses > > "as a vampire" because "as a vampire" it's not eligible to > > block a Daring the Dawn action. You can't play intercept to > > block an action you're not allowed to try to block. > > Correct. This is preposterous. Why would, say, a feline ally who can use basic Auspex, be unable to intercept by day ? A Garou can have enhanced senses, that doesn't make him a vampire !!

> > And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are > >allowed to wear two Flak Jackets. > > Why? Do you think it's impossible for a superhumanly strong > individual to wear body armor adequate to stop a .44? No, no more than a Rock Cat wearing 6 Flak Jackets and one leather Jacket and firing a Sniper's Rifle would be ridiculous, why ? Personally, I love to equip Ambrosius with a Sport Bike, a .44 Mag, a Leather Jacket and a Laptop, but it's jsut because of the fun of the paradox. But this could be physically possible, if a little contrary to the character. Animals shouldn't use human equipements, and you shouldn't wear more than 1 jacket of a sort (ever worn a flack jacket ? if you want better protection you get a bullet-proof jacket, here's an idea for a new equipement !!). But, of course, I know it's too complicated for game rules ; I guess it's up to each of us to establish, in home games, what we admit or not. There are some "ridiculous and illogical" rules in this game we love, but this is no reason to add more, which would be inconsistent with another game we love : the Vampire RPG. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >There are no complicated rules about torporized minions >nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. >The ally is always an ally. >The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, >by explicit card text. From the rulings: >>For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are >>treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the >>appropriate cards. "All parts of the resolution" certainly sounds like all involved phases to me. I really don't follow the distinction between "resolution of the play" and "resolution of the effect". I've never had to worry about whether the resolution of an action is the resolution of the play of a card or the resolution of its effect. With permanent effects cards are often "in play" It seems like Ex Nihilo would hang around effectively by this rule while Burst would inflict 1 agg - and then go away before the effect (its agg damage) resolves, leave the ally to face 1 normal damage and no torpor. The discussion on this backs up my claim that it's complicated - it seems almost everybody has a different interpretation of "all parts of the resolution". The Herald set this off. I really don't have a "game world" opinion on how the Herald's voting attempts should work - it doesn't blow my mind that a non- vampire could piddle in Kindred politics and it doesn't blow my mind that Kindred would ignore the piddling. It just seems obvious to me that if a vampire played Charming Lobby, a vote goes off, so if the Herald plays CL "as a vampire", a vote should go off then too. Yeah, allies can't call votes by the rules, but cards override rules. I don't see any reason for the linkage you've drawn between the Herald and BOS. The point I've made before is that "as a vampire" is pretty vague so you might as well interpret it in a way that makes sim-sense. I can't see any currently playable cards that cause a problem if you morph "this vampire" -> "this minion". Yeah, Ex Nihilo hangs about, but it's not like the WoD hasn't a gazillion ways to step sideways/cross the Gauntlet/walk the Shadowlands etc. Some of the Fortitude cards would be problematic but you're going to have trouble when you start considering allied Day Ops anyway. >The RPG'ers have already "gone nuts" over the ability to >wear two Flak Jackets as well. So? Somebody who claims you can't get body armor to defend against a .44 hasn't a leg to stand on. A WoD complaint that a mage shouldn't get crisped by generating a little sunlight is very strong. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >Damnans wrote: >> Wouldn't it be possible create a new rule to simplify things: > >> "Cards requiring disciplines can be played by vampires, allies, and retainers >> (should it be the case) having the required Discipline." > >> Card texts would do the rest (i.e., some cards state that they are only >> usable by vampires, and others state nothing about it). >Still wouldn't handle many effects properly, since many discipline-requiring >effects have been written under the assumption that they are played by a >vampire. Quite the minority, actually - I was just looking. Really, you'd have to determine card-by-card whether a given effect is "reasonable" for an ally, and by this you could with the choice of "this vampire" vs. "this minion". More existing cards would be denied allies than necessary but that's not the end of the world - I saw less than 10. [ quoted text not captured ]

> GENERAL RULINGS: > > For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are > treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the > appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the > resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects > granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a > card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the > resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally > striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby > to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire"). > (REVERSAL) So say my Rock Cat Rampages a location. He can play cards as a vampire until the end of the action? Which includes the resulting combat if blocked? (up to when is he longer playing cards as a vampire?) Does he become vulnerable to cards like Legacy of Power, et al. during the Rampage action? So he could play taste of vitae in the combat if blocked while rampaging?

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote > > Personally, I love to equip Ambrosius with a Sport Bike, a .44 Mag, a > Leather Jacket and a Laptop, but it's jsut because of the fun of the > paradox. But this could be physically possible, if a little contrary to the > character. Me too! It's like having your very own Ghost Rider... though I don't remember the comicbook character ever wielding an iBook.

Peter Muto wrote: > So say my Rock Cat Rampages a location. He can play cards as a vampire > until the end of the action? No. > Which includes the resulting combat if > blocked? No. > (up to when is he longer playing cards as a vampire?) Does he > become vulnerable to cards like Legacy of Power, et al. during the > Rampage action? No. > So he could play taste of vitae in the combat if > blocked while rampaging? No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020502142622...@mb-md.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm just confused about when Michigan began to be abbreviated with an N instead of an M... All these people talking about the NJL when I always used to think it was the MJL...

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD17E16...@white-wolf.com>... > Ben Peal wrote: > > However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow > > "as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight > > "as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen: > > > > The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage, > > sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor. > > > > The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage. > > Correct. This still makes no logical sense to me. Where did the motavation to rule that the ally is considered a vampire come from? Inferior Burst of Sunlight states "Strike: 1R aggravated to all vampires in combat." An ally isn't a vampire so why would they take the damage? Because of this ruling? Is that the only reason? What led to this particular decision being made? Consider this...a Rafastio Ghoul is in combat with a vampire with thaumaturgy. They both declare their strike to be inferior Burst of Sunlight. Assuming that these two strikes are the only sources of damage in the current combat, how much damage is assigned to the Rafastio Ghoul at strike resolution? If the answer to this question is more than 0 but less than 2 aggravated damage then this game should be renamed Generic: The Eternal Whatever as the rules team obviously doesn't seem care about game theme in any manner whatsoever. Thanks Jake the Rake

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<aas2au$sq1$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > > > And yes, I think it is utterly ridiculous that vampires are > > >allowed to wear two Flak Jackets. > > > > Why? Do you think it's impossible for a superhumanly strong > > individual to wear body armor adequate to stop a .44? > > No, no more than a Rock Cat wearing 6 Flak Jackets and one leather Jacket > and firing a Sniper's Rifle would be ridiculous, why ? > > Personally, I love to equip Ambrosius with a Sport Bike, a .44 Mag, a > Leather Jacket and a Laptop, but it's jsut because of the fun of the > paradox. But this could be physically possible, if a little contrary to the > character. > > Animals shouldn't use human equipements, and you shouldn't wear more than 1 > jacket of a sort (ever worn a flack jacket ? if you want better protection > you get a bullet-proof jacket, here's an idea for a new equipement !!). But, > of course, I know it's too complicated for game rules ; I guess it's up to > each of us to establish, in home games, what we admit or not. > > There are some "ridiculous and illogical" rules in this game we love, but > this is no reason to add more, which would be inconsistent with another game > we love : the Vampire RPG. > > > -- > Yours, > > Orpheus, Prince of Marseille My personal favourite is a War Ghoul with multiple IR goggles. I can't say that I see the point to the arguement though. Unrealisitc yes, but why limit strategies (unecessarily)? Non-human allies can't equip? Seems to shift some usefulness away from a good deal of cards with no inherent benefit (other than to soothe someones sense of logic). -Merto

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD12A43...@white-wolf.com>... > Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > So if a Rafastio Ghoul strikes with Burst of Sunlight and the opponent > > dodges, the Rafastio ghoul will be in torpor with 2 life? > > Yes, unless he prevents the damage (assuming he started with 2 life). But if he prevents the damage (and his opponent don't dodge) can now play Amaranth and diablerize his opponent? Or can he use Taste of Vitae if his opponent lose blood? Ciao Stefano. Italy

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message news:<20020502131055...@mb-cr.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Not impossible, but can you imagine wearing 2 flak jackets at one time? That must bring about some disadvantage. Even so, that wasn't my point. I am willing to concede a certain amount of inconsistency with the roleplaying element (such as those that existed in the game until yesterday), but why not try to stick to the story as much as possible? Rulings that do things like allow allies to go into torpor demonstrate a complete lack of regard for the roleplaying segment of the game. Jason

> There are no complicated rules about torporized minions > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. > The ally is always an ally. > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, > by explicit card text. An ally is always an ally. And it states in the rules that allies treat aggravated damage as normal. Since declaring strikes happens in a different phase than resolving those strikes, wouldn't it be that the ally would be treated "as if" a vampire when declaring the strike but not so when resolving that strike? You've stated many times that the ally is treated as a vampire only by playing the card. So by the time the strike resolves, the card has been played and moved onto another phase. So, since during the strike resolution phase, the ally is still an "ally", shouldn't it treat aggravated damage as normal as provided for in the rules? Sorrow --- "No, you're insane" -Tyler Durden

Sorrow wrote: > > > There are no complicated rules about torporized minions > > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. > > The ally is always an ally. > > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, > > by explicit card text. > > An ally is always an ally. And it states in the rules that allies > treat aggravated damage as normal. > Since declaring strikes happens in a different phase than > resolving those strikes, wouldn't it be that the ally would be > treated "as if" a vampire when declaring the strike but not > so when resolving that strike? You've stated many times > that the ally is treated as a vampire only by playing the card. See the new RTR for the new ruling. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jake Rake wrote: > Consider this...a Rafastio Ghoul is in combat with a vampire with > thaumaturgy. They both declare their strike to be inferior Burst of > Sunlight. Assuming that these two strikes are the only sources of > damage in the current combat, how much damage is assigned to the > Rafastio Ghoul at strike resolution? 1 agg. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] As stated several times in this thread: no. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3CD17FE3...@ono.com>... > The point is that allies should not play Discipline cards "as a vampire" but "as an ally", > since the current "as a vampire" text causes confusion. It's obvious that an ally is not a > vampire (and that an ally does not become a vampires while playing a Discipline card). > > The current rules treat allies as if they were vampires (for Discipline card playing > purposes), "ignoring" the fact that they have their own merits and flaws as allies, and that > changing this creates some undesirable paradoxes (as some one else has already stated) and > confusion. > > I understand this is a CARD GAME, governed by its own rules, but treating allies as vampires > (at least temporarily) contradicts the "spirit" of the RPG on which V:TES is based. > > How can an ally enter torpor? According to the current rules, it's perfectly legal, but > according to "common sense" it is not at all. > > Greetings, > Damnans This stands on its own as the best possible argument to me Damnans. Seems so simple and intuitive. Keep the intention of the "disciplined" allies (ie mortal or supernatural creatures with above-human abilities) without turning them into temporary vampires. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] I've just responded to this on RustWurk, but for the benfit of others who don't read there: So you would have allies that can use discipline cards become unable to play the ones that refer to the vampire playing it? (Even though all of them could have been written as "this vampire blah blah", since the card writers have always assumed that discipline-requiring cards were played by vampires.) Mummies would no longer be able to play Eyes of the Dead just because it says "this vampire gets +1 intercept" instead of the usual "+1 intercept"? Mummies would no longer be able to play Shroud Mastery or Soul Stealing for the same reason? Talaq (assuming he had previously gained enough life via Theft of Vitae) cannot play Eldrich Glimmer, Magic of the Smith, Perfect Clarity, Shotgun Ritual, Skin of the Cameleon, Blood Agony, Draught of the Soul, Foul Blood, Silence of Death, and Veil of Silence, just because the card writer's used "this vampire" instead of "this minion" (appropriately, since cards that require disciplines can only be played by vampires with those disciplines, according to the rulebook)? And you would have Talaq be able to play as many Thin Bloods as he likes each round, because only vampires are restricted to one per round? And Ghouled Street Thug could no longer play Torn Signpost, Increased Strength, or Disarm? (Replace "play" with "benefit from", depending on your "solution", is needed.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> So you would have allies that can use discipline cards become unable > to play the ones that refer to the vampire playing it? But why does this mean that the ally treats aggravated damage as if s/he were a vampire when the ally clearly should not. Not only because it states that allies treat aggravated damage as normal in the rule book, but it is also very counter-intuitive and counter to how the WoD treats and handles non-vampires. A Human Mage entering a state that is only applicable to vampires...? You know, I'm actually very curious what the people at WW would have to say about this new ruling... Granted, they may not have any say in it but I'm still very curious about what they think regarding how this reflects on the WoD cannon Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

Sorrow wrote: > But why does this mean that the ally treats aggravated damage as if s/he > were a vampire? As stated, ally played card as vampire: card play does damage to ally as vampire (likewise ally gets benefit from card play as vampire). > A Human Mage entering a state that is only applicable to vampires...? > You know, I'm actually very curious what the people at WW would have > to say about this new ruling... Granted, they may not have any say in it > but I'm still very curious about what they think regarding how this reflects > on the WoD cannon Most would be surprised to find that the Assamites are still blood cursed, that Wake can be used by non-mages, that old vampires tend to stay in torpor for a far shorter period than young vampires once there, that Igo can torporize Etrius, and so on, I suspect. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD29FE7...@white-wolf.com... > Matt Latham wrote: > > This stands on its own as the best possible argument to me Damnans. > > Seems so simple and intuitive. Keep the intention of the "disciplined" > > allies (ie mortal or supernatural creatures with above-human > > abilities) without turning them into temporary vampires. > > I've just responded to this on RustWurk, but for the benfit of others > who don't read there: > > So you would have allies that can use discipline cards become unable > to play the ones that refer to the vampire playing it? > > (Even though all of them could have been written as "this vampire blah > blah", since the card writers have always assumed that > discipline-requiring cards were played by vampires.) Pretty much any solution that doesn't require us to pretend that allies are vampires would be simpler, yes. I'd think it might be productive to say that when an ally "plays cards that require discipline X as a vampire of capacity Y", it is that card that is played as if a vampire were playing it, not the ally that is treated as a vampire. IE, "as a vampire of capacity Y [would play it]", not "as [if this ally were] a vampire of capacity Y". This would allow allies to play cards that refer to "this vampire" and use them as if they referred to "this minion". It would still allow allies to go to torpor in some situations (eg by playing Ashes to Ashes), but an ally playing Burst of Sunlight would presumably not take the aggravated side-effect damage (since it doesn't say "this vampire also takes 1 aggravated damage" but instead "to all vampires in combat"). Even just disallowing the play of (or benefit from) all cards referring to "this vampire" by allies might be an acceptable trade-off between background-world realism and card-game wordings. There are (according to Monger) 189 library cards that use the phrase "this vampire", though not all of them are relevant (discipline masters, for example). That's out of (if its count is correct) 1098 total library cards, leaving over 80% of cards theoretically usable by allies. (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-) Josh foolish mortal!

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Pretty much any solution that doesn't require us to pretend > that allies are vampires would be simpler, yes. > I'd think it might be productive to say that when an ally > "plays cards that require discipline X as a vampire of > capacity Y", it is that card that is played as if a > vampire were playing it, not the ally that is treated as > a vampire. IE, "as a vampire of capacity Y [would play > it]", not "as [if this ally were] a vampire of capacity Y". > > This would allow allies to play cards that refer to "this > vampire" and use them as if they referred to "this minion". > It would still allow allies to go to torpor in some > situations (eg by playing Ashes to Ashes), but an ally > playing Burst of Sunlight would presumably not take the > aggravated side-effect damage (since it doesn't say "this > vampire also takes 1 aggravated damage" but instead "to > all vampires in combat"). This is a pretty solid argument/angle/solution. I'll toss the subject back on the list. [...] > (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use > Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-) Oooh! Lies! A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength by playing a TS. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use > > Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-) > > Oooh! Lies! > A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength > by playing a TS. :-) Hmm. Must've missed something. I fell for your bait and assumed that GST had a strength of 2. But he's only got a 1. So he'd benefit from the TS under "normal" situations, as well. Perhaps you're thinking of Blood Brother Ambush? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD2AF64...@white-wolf.com... > LSJ wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use > > > Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-) > > > > Oooh! Lies! > > A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength > > by playing a TS. :-) > > Hmm. Must've missed something. I fell for your bait and assumed > that GST had a strength of 2. But he's only got a 1. So he'd > benefit from the TS under "normal" situations, as well. > > Perhaps you're thinking of Blood Brother Ambush? Doh! I actually misread Ghouled Street Thug and read his 2 life as 2 strength. :-) I recant my testimony. Ghouled Street Thug can currently gain all kinds of goodness by playing Torn Signpost. And then Disarm. (But unless I'm missing something, Bonecraft/Languid/ Disease don't make Signpost *more* useful to him, do they? Because their modifiers will still be applied to his reset base strength?) Josh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > LSJ wrote: > > > A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength > > > by playing a TS. :-) > > > > Hmm. Must've missed something. I fell for your bait and assumed > > that GST had a strength of 2. But he's only got a 1. So he'd > > benefit from the TS under "normal" situations, as well. > > Doh! I actually misread Ghouled Street Thug and read > his 2 life as 2 strength. :-) > (But unless I'm missing something, Bonecraft/Languid/ > Disease don't make Signpost *more* useful to him, do they? > Because their modifiers will still be applied to his > reset base strength?) Doh! Right. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Fri, 03 May 2002 01:09:13 GMT, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20020502142622...@mb-md.aol.com... >> >What kind of crack are you smoking? This is the most fucking ludicrous >> >departure from the World of Darkness that VTES has ever taken. What's >> >worse is this nonsense isn't supported by the rules in any form. >> > >> >If this is the kind of rulings I can look forward to, I may look >> >forward to resigning my princeship and selling all my cards. That >> >statement is just plain stupid. >> >> >> LOL. Maybe it's time for the NJL to secede again or somethin'? =P >> >I'm just confused about when Michigan began to be abbreviated with an N instead >of an M... All these people talking about the NJL when I always used to think >it was the MJL... The MJL mailing list started to expand out to other parts of the country, as other groups also had issue with 7/7 rulings (back in the day). The MJL community decided to evolve the group name NJL (National Jyhad League) to better reflect it's expansion in the US. I don't recall the exact date off the top of my head, but the name change occurred around Feb. 2000. Bernie

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD12A20...@white-wolf.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > A vampire blocks a Rafastio Ghoul. The Ghoul plays any aggravated > > damage causing Thaumaturgy strike, and is now considered a vampire. > > Incorrect. He plays the strike card "as a vampire". He is not a vampire. > That sounds like a contradiction of your ruling. If an ally plays a card requiring a discipline then it will be treated to any of it's effects as if it were a vampire (i.e. Burst of Sunlight). It really has the sound of making an ally becoming a vampire temporarily. The question would then be when does the ally stop being like (or in this case, actually being) a vampire? > > The opposing player plays Roteschreck, and sends the Ghoul to torpor > > (Roteschreck interupts the resolution of the card, and would seem to > > take place during the time the ally is a "vampire"). > > Not legal. The ally is not a vampire for purposes of Rotschreck (i.e., > there's no mechanism to make Rotschreck treat the ally as a vampire). It actually seems like there is now. If the ally plays a discipline card, thereby becoming "like a vampire" and subject to vampire frailities (such as vulnerability to aggravated damage), it should also be vulnerable to a Rotschreck if the opposing minion is able play one and send the ally (vampire wannabe due to a discipline card it played) into torpor. It would then revert back to ally status. However, as there is no mechanism to rescuing allies in torpor within the rules, they would have to stay there indefinitely. It could then bring up the question of bloodhunts on vampires snacking on torporized allies? But this is all conjecture as you stated in an earlier post that torporize allies would burn, however, you also then stated afterward that it didn't really require an input into the rules. Why not? I can not see any leap of logic that would lead me into that direction. Especially as allies, per the rules, treat aggravated damage as normal damage and die when they reach zero life. What does disturb me is trying to explain this to new players without turning them off from the game. Right now house rules here follow tournament rules to allow any new (and current) players to build and play decks that can then be picked up and played at any sanctioned tournament anywhere. If this ruling makes my head hurt, what do you think it will do to new players? And I do not think giving aspirin will solve the problem while introducing this new ruling. I sincerely believe that allies, following the last printed rules currently available to players worldwide (Final Nights), should be immune to aggravated damage, period. Players with allies wanting to play discipline cards that indicate a vampire as only being able to play it should not be allowed to play the cards. Why? Card text states only vampires can play the card. It doesn't matter if it is a discipline card or not, otherwise all V:TES discipline cards should indicate "only useable by a vampire". They don't and therefore certain discipline cards are available to allies to use provided they have text stating they may use cards requiring disciplines. Besides only vampires can normally use discipline cards and they are the only minions who can receive discipline cards during Master phases. Allies brought out with discipline cards do not fall under this as their card text specifically states otherwise. As it stands now, if an ally comes out that can use Obtenebration, it could effectively use Black Metamorphosis and become a vampire from then on as it could play the card "as a vampire" and then remain so as card text could lead one to believe. But then again, I have always understood the text "may play (discipline) cards as if a vampire with a capacity of #" to mean the ally has a set blood/life expenditure level on whatever discipline card it wants to play no matter how much life it actually has. Yes, a Shadow Court Satyr could be brought out and then receive a Burst of Sunlight combat card to make it a real bad MF, but it is still an ally and should have different vulnerabilities. The worse vulnerability has always been pool cost for a recruited minion that is more perishable than your average vampire. Too much normal damage on vampire = naptime in your local torpor flowergarden. Too much normal damage on an ally = death. The new ruling on interrupting card effects also does not set will. I can see the possibility of Psyche! performing the interrupt against Rotschreck as it is a combat card, I do not see it with Fast Reaction. Fast Reaction is a reaction card and must wait until after the combat has ended before play. If a diablerie and bloodhunt are tied to each other, then cards played within combat that have effects outside of the combat should have priority over new cards trying to get into the mix. Psyche! can possibly bypass this due to it being a combat card and therefore being able to legally enter the card mix during combat. Fast Reaction is a different class of card, reaction not combat. However, I do not see any timing identified within combat when a vampire is placed into torpor (either before combat ends or after combat ends). If you go by order of card text, then you prescribe an order where combat ends and the vampire is sent to torpor. But after looking at that, the intuitive aspect of a player should be to complete one card prior to implementing another. If that would be the case, then Psyche! would also fail to interrupt a Rotschreck as neither one of the two minions would be ready. Michael Eichler

Ramsteiner wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD12A20...@white-wolf.com>... > > jspektr wrote: > > > A vampire blocks a Rafastio Ghoul. The Ghoul plays any aggravated > > > damage causing Thaumaturgy strike, and is now considered a vampire. > > > > Incorrect. He plays the strike card "as a vampire". He is not a vampire. > > > That sounds like a contradiction of your ruling. If an ally plays a > card requiring a discipline then it will be treated to any of it's > effects as if it were a vampire (i.e. Burst of Sunlight). It really > has the sound of making an ally becoming a vampire temporarily. The No. Just as Wake doesn't untap the vampire temporarily. > question would then be when does the ally stop being like (or in this > case, actually being) a vampire? Moot. He is treated as a vampire by the play of the card. > > > The opposing player plays Roteschreck, and sends the Ghoul to torpor > > > (Roteschreck interupts the resolution of the card, and would seem to > > > take place during the time the ally is a "vampire"). > > > > Not legal. The ally is not a vampire for purposes of Rotschreck (i.e., > > there's no mechanism to make Rotschreck treat the ally as a vampire). > > It actually seems like there is now. If the ally plays a discipline > card, thereby becoming "like a vampire" and subject to vampire > frailities (such as vulnerability to aggravated damage), it should > also be vulnerable to a Rotschreck if the opposing minion is able play > one and send the ally (vampire wannabe due to a discipline card it > played) into torpor. It would then revert back to ally status. He *plays the card as a vampire* (card text). He doesn't become a vampire. If there were some effect that could allow Rotschreck to be played as if he were a vampire, then OK. But there's not. > However, as there is no mechanism to rescuing allies in torpor within > the rules, they would have to stay there indefinitely. It could then Right. > bring up the question of bloodhunts on vampires snacking on torporized > allies? But this is all conjecture as you stated in an earlier post No. Just as there's no mechanism for rescuing them, there's no mechanism for diablerizing them. This is trivially obvious. > that torporize allies would burn, however, you also then stated You are mistaken. I have never said that "torporize allies would burn". I have said that, *if* players couldn't stomach allies in torpor (which would only be because of RPG theme violation), *then* the course of action would be to say that such allies burn (rather than saying that such allies remain ready, as some have suggested). > afterward that it didn't really require an input into the rules. Why > not? I can not see any leap of logic that would lead me into that > direction. Especially as allies, per the rules, treat aggravated > damage as normal damage and die when they reach zero life. And allies, per the rules, don't play cards that require disciplines, since cards that require disciplines can be played only by vampires that have those disciplines. Luckily, this is rescued by the "card text" rule [1.4]. Card text allows the ally to play a card that requires a Discipline as as vampire. And therefore, as a vampire is how he plays the card. > I sincerely believe that allies, following the last printed rules > currently available to players worldwide (Final Nights), should be > immune to aggravated damage, period. Players with allies wanting to Allies usually treat agg damage as normal damage. They are not immune to it. (See if Muddles jumps when you point a Flamethrower at him from long range :-) > play discipline cards that indicate a vampire as only being able to > play it should not be allowed to play the cards. Why? Card text > states only vampires can play the card. It doesn't matter if it is a See 1.4 for how to handle conflicts between card text and rules. > discipline card or not, otherwise all V:TES discipline cards should > indicate "only useable by a vampire". They don't and therefore The Disicpline icon does so, per the rules. That's why the allies that can play such cards do so "as a vampire". > certain discipline cards are available to allies to use provided they > have text stating they may use cards requiring disciplines. Besides And, though you may believe it is a coincidence, all those allies also have text saying that they do so "as a vampire". > only vampires can normally use discipline cards and they are the only > minions who can receive discipline cards during Master phases. Allies > brought out with discipline cards do not fall under this as their card > text specifically states otherwise. > > As it stands now, if an ally comes out that can use Obtenebration, it > could effectively use Black Metamorphosis and become a vampire from > then on as it could play the card "as a vampire" and then remain so as > card text could lead one to believe. You have muddled a second portion of the rule. See the differentiation between the effects of a card in play and the effects of playing a card. Ex Nihilo and Rutor's Hand are the usual examples (since allies currently exist to play these cards). > But then again, I have always understood the text "may play > (discipline) cards as if a vampire with a capacity of #" to mean the > ally has a set blood/life expenditure level on whatever discipline > card it wants to play no matter how much life it actually has. No. It doesn't mean that at all. The capacity level is set because some cards that require disciplines refer to the capacity of the vampire playing it (since all such cards are written under the assumption that they will be played by vampires, per the rules). > The new ruling on interrupting card effects also does not set will. I > can see the possibility of Psyche! performing the interrupt against > Rotschreck as it is a combat card, I do not see it with Fast Reaction. > > Fast Reaction is a reaction card and must wait until after the combat > has ended before play. If a diablerie and bloodhunt are tied to each > other, then cards played within combat that have effects outside of > the combat should have priority over new cards trying to get into the > mix. That "If ... then ..." is not valid. Form of Mist has long been thwarted by Fast Reaction. > Psyche! can possibly bypass this due to it being a combat card > and therefore being able to legally enter the card mix during combat. > Fast Reaction is a different class of card, reaction not combat. > > However, I do not see any timing identified within combat when a > vampire is placed into torpor (either before combat ends or after > combat ends). If you go by order of card text, then you prescribe an > order where combat ends and the vampire is sent to torpor. But after > looking at that, the intuitive aspect of a player should be to > complete one card prior to implementing another. If that would be the > case, then Psyche! would also fail to interrupt a Rotschreck as > neither one of the two minions would be ready. Sure. And if that (perfectly plausible) ruling were made, then Telepathic Counter couldn't interrupt a Catatonic Fear, for example. With the various interractions weighed, the current ruling was deemed to be the least troublesome. [ quoted text not captured ]

>If the answer to this question is more than 0 but less than 2 >aggravated damage then this game should be renamed Generic: The >Eternal Whatever as the rules team obviously doesn't seem care about >game theme in any manner whatsoever. In order for a CCG to play well, thematics have to take a back seat to mechanics. Ideally, you find a way to get the two to work together, but it can be difficult. I believe LSJ's argument is that this cleans up complexities with allies acting as vampires (BTW, better to never use "as" or "as if" in a CCG, it always produces headaches). The challenge, then, is to come up with a rule for allies acting as vampires that is better than the current rule. This would likely require some effort. Need to check to make sure every possible instance of card play doesn't produce greater rules problems. On an unrelated note, I idly wonder if there's any problem with allies being "wounded" by their own agg effects. I don't think so unless they can do 2+ agg to themselves. If this scenario is possible, which I'm not sure as I'm not that familiar with the relevant rules, I'd probably want to know whether they could burn life instead of blood to keep from burning.

>Especially as allies, per the rules, treat aggravated >damage as normal damage and die when they reach zero life. > >What does disturb me is trying to explain this to new players without >turning them off from the game. I find this implausible. This is a rare occurrence that has a trivial effect on the game. New players aren't that likely to consider ally based strategies, even less likely to pick the specific cases that so many people seem to have an issue with - ones involving Burst of Sunlight. Yes, Rafastio + Burst was obvious, but I know of very few veteran players who have used the combo. There are far more things that are likely to bother a new player. Further, new players will often recognize the limitations of their knowledge of the game to where finding this out would be of minor consequence. This assumes a new player will get their hands on Burst. By the time a player has Bursts, at least until the next set comes out if it has them when they will be a new card again, he/she will likely not be a new player anymore. I also see people making a mountain out of a mole hill on the topic of Burst and allies. I don't have a problem with people complaining about the ruling or wishing to see it changed, but the fact of the matter is that it has little effect on the game - shooting down maybe 3 decks (out of 100s) that are rarely played, assuming people can't be bothered to put Flak Jackets in.

"LSJ" mistyped: > Sure. And if that (perfectly plausible) ruling were made, then > Telepathic Counter couldn't interrupt a Catatonic Fear, for example. Telepathic Count doesn't interrupt a Catatonic Fear. Telepathic Tracking will. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article <20020503162552...@mb-fa.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote: >>If the answer to this question is more than 0 but less than 2 >>aggravated damage then this game should be renamed Generic: The >>Eternal Whatever as the rules team obviously doesn't seem care about >>game theme in any manner whatsoever. > >In order for a CCG to play well, thematics have to take a back seat to >mechanics. Ideally, you find a way to get the two to work together, but it can >be difficult. > >I believe LSJ's argument is that this cleans up complexities with allies acting >as vampires (BTW, better to never use "as" or "as if" in a CCG, it always >produces headaches). The challenge, then, is to come up with a rule for allies >acting as vampires that is better than the current rule. This would likely >require some effort. Need to check to make sure every possible instance of >card play doesn't produce greater rules problems. What about something along the lines of this: Proposed rule (rough draft): Some allies have the ability to play cards requiring certain disciplines as a vampire of a specific capacity, as per card text. When an ally does so, replace all instances of "this vampire", "this acting vampire", "this blocking vampire", and "this reacting vampire" on the card being played with "this ally", "this acting ally", "this blocking ally", and "this reacting ally", respectively. Neither references to vampires as a group nor any other card or effect treats the ally as a vampire. Any costs in blood are paid with life instead, and any blood gained becomes life gained. An effect which explicitly states so may result in the ally being sent to torpor. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."

LSJ wrote: > I have said that, *if* players couldn't stomach allies in torpor (which > would only be because of RPG theme violation), *then* the course of > action would be to say that such allies burn (rather than saying that > such allies remain ready, as some have suggested). Note that such a change, if it were to occur, would not be purely cosmetic, as there would then be the option to play cards such as Compel the Spirit, Left For Dead, and Whispers of the Dead for that ally card. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

On Wed, 01 May 2002 11:05:33 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >RULINGS: > >EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It >allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a >Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. >It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, >Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). Why does this state 'block an undirected action'? Clearly Eagles Sight allows you to attempt a block of ANY action by ANY minion, and thus would include directed as well as undirected actions. > >Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the >single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a >new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or >Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to >end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after >combat (see Majesty ruling above). > Umm, since when did Psyche become a Direct Intervention as well? (May 1st apparently) Horrible ruling this. It should just delay the torpor/CFear damage until combat truly ends. T

Joy. Ok, so the statement on ally cards that is the primary reason for this new ruling is "as a vampire"? Is this correct? I am not sure how it would lead to this type of ruling. Current rules state that allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage (bottom of 6.4.6). Current rules state that allies can not call referendums (6.1.7). Allies that can play discipline cards based upon the ally's card text states the following each time, "This ally may use (some discipline at basic or inferior) as a vampire with a capacity of (some number)". What I see is a fragment from this sentence being taken out of context to make a new ruling rather than dealing with the whole sentence as a whole. The capacity number set on allies is there to restrict their usage of some discipline cards. It is not alway the same number and therefore the restriction varies. If it were otherwise, I would regard the sentence as poorly written and due for major revision. So let me ask this question, can allies that are able to play discipline cards able to play cards that specify vampire only? If they are, why? I understand that rule 1.4 allows card text to override rules, however, in the case of a political actions, I do not see the text overriding the rules. Example would be the an ally wanting to use Charming Lobby, as was presented somewhere earlier in this thread. Rules state - Allies can not call referendums. An ally able to use Presence wants to pay Charming Lobby to try and bypass this restriction. Charming Lobby text reads - "+1 stealth political action. Call a referendum. If the referendum passes, then the next referendum called thereafter passes automatically. (S) As above, and this vampire gains 2 votes for the first referendum." If allies can not call referendums in the rules and the card text specifically states "Call a referendum", are you telling me that enables bypasss capability? How? The logic does not stand up to scrutiny. Now back to the sentence - play basic (discipline) cards as if a vampire with a capacity of (some number). I can understand there being some cards that restrict usage based upon capacity level. An example could be Precognizant Mobility if an ally was able to play basic Auspex cards as a vampire with a capacity of 3. This would mean that the ally could untap another vampire or ally that either had a capacity of 2 or less, or a cost of 2 or less. However, I do not see the justification of just taking the fragment "as a vampire" constitutes your new ruling based upon current text. Now if an ally with this sentence - ally may play basic (discipline) cards as a vampire; I would then understand the reasoning to bring out a ruling as you have presented. But just to take something out of context and making a ruling on it, is a mistake. I have also viewed the sentence - play basic (discipline) cards as if a vampire with a capacity of (some number) - to also represent an upper limit as to the amount of life that ally could expend within one turn where it might use more than one allowable discipline card that had blood costs. And to also set the upper limit on any one allowable discipline card the ally could use overall. Example would be - Shadow Court Satyr. It has the sentence "may only use the basic ability of a discipline card as a vampire with a capacity of 1. Therefore it could not be brought out with a Decapitate as it requires 2 blood and the Saytr can only play discipline cards as a vampire with a capacity of 1. Please show me where this does not follow a logical order based upon the complete sentence. Otherwise, why would you have allies that could use some basic disipline cards as a vampire with a capacity of varying numbers? Why not just make them all the same? Instead you have different numbers to restrict the amount of life an ally and expend in one turn and to restrict it from using certain basic discipline cards that do not explictly state that the card is only useable by a vampire. <snip> > Ex Nihilo and Rutor's Hand are the usual examples (since allies > currently exist to play these cards). > Oh... So allies now have the capability to play cards that are reserved for vampires only. This does not meet the "press to test" button criteria. An ally is not a vampire. Whatever happened to just following card text? Rutor's Hand has the following sentence in it that logically excludes allies from playing it - "Put this card on the acting vampire". If you were to follow that direction of thought, you would see that while allies may have the capability to play basic discipline card as a vampire with some kind of capacity level, it does not in fact make them vampires. It just means they have access to cards not normally allowed to allies as a whole. > > But then again, I have always understood the text "may play > > (discipline) cards as if a vampire with a capacity of #" to mean the > > ally has a set blood/life expenditure level on whatever discipline > > card it wants to play no matter how much life it actually has. > > No. It doesn't mean that at all. > Why? I don't follow the reasoning as to why they shouldn't. > The capacity level is set because some cards that require disciplines > refer to the capacity of the vampire playing it (since all such cards > are written under the assumption that they will be played by vampires, > per the rules). Really? Where in the rules does it state that? If it is due to the "As a vampire" fragment that is being taken out of context, then the logic is flawed. > > > The new ruling on interrupting card effects also does not set will. I > > can see the possibility of Psyche! performing the interrupt against > > Rotschreck as it is a combat card, I do not see it with Fast Reaction. > > > > Fast Reaction is a reaction card and must wait until after the combat > > has ended before play. If a diablerie and bloodhunt are tied to each > > other, then cards played within combat that have effects outside of > > the combat should have priority over new cards trying to get into the > > mix. > > That "If ... then ..." is not valid. > > Form of Mist has long been thwarted by Fast Reaction. > I never said anything against Fast Reaction vs Form of Mist. Form of Mist allows you to continue the action which in turn allows reaction cards to come to the forefront. Fast Reaction text has specific provisions that allow the initiation of another combat without the need to re-intercept. > > Psyche! can possibly bypass this due to it being a combat card > > and therefore being able to legally enter the card mix during combat. > > Fast Reaction is a different class of card, reaction not combat. > > > > However, I do not see any timing identified within combat when a > > vampire is placed into torpor (either before combat ends or after > > combat ends). If you go by order of card text, then you prescribe an > > order where combat ends and the vampire is sent to torpor. But after > > looking at that, the intuitive aspect of a player should be to > > complete one card prior to implementing another. If that would be the > > case, then Psyche! would also fail to interrupt a Rotschreck as > > neither one of the two minions would be ready. > > Sure. And if that (perfectly plausible) ruling were made, then > Telepathic Counter couldn't interrupt a Catatonic Fear, for example. > Again Telepathic Tracking at superior has text containing specific provisions to allow the interruption of Catatonic Fear as it is a combat card being used in a combat. Catatonic Fear (at superior) is a S:CE with and after combat effect. Telepathic Tracking (at superior) prevents the ending of combat and moves it to the start of the next round. > With the various interractions weighed, the current ruling was > deemed to be the least troublesome. I do not see how. If you use the above reasoning I have with discipline using allies, I see no problems whatsoever. With the Fast Reaction overriding Rotschreck, I do not see logical flow for allowing Fast Reaction to preimpt a vampire from going to torpor. I really don't even see it, after some thought, with Psyche! as the combat ends because one of the minions is sent to torpor. Which would seem to follow the logical order of combat ending in an aggravated damage First Strike sending an opposing vampire to torpor and ending combat before the other player has the chance to play anything else. Psyche!, while a combat card, requires both minions to be ready to enable it's use. If one is sent to torpor then it is no longer ready and does not follow the dictates of the card text. No matter what the case, a combat can only exist between two ready minions and if one is no longer ready then you no longer have a combat. But I can see with some cards like Amaranth being tossed out to counter what I have above and again, all I can say is look at the card text. It specifically states "Play when the opposing vampire is going to torpor". Fast Reaction and Psyche! do not. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein

"Ramsteiner" asked: > Ok, so the statement on ally cards that is the primary reason for this > new ruling is "as a vampire"? Is this correct? Card text, yes. > I am not sure how it would lead to this type of ruling. Reading card text. > Current rules state that allies treat aggravated damage as normal > damage (bottom of 6.4.6). > Current rules state that allies can not call referendums (6.1.7). 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > Allies that can play discipline cards based upon the ally's card text > states the following each time, "This ally may use (some discipline at > basic or inferior) as a vampire with a capacity of (some number)". > What I see is a fragment from this sentence being taken out of context > to make a new ruling rather than dealing with the whole sentence as a > whole. The capacity number set on allies is there to restrict their > usage of some discipline cards. It is not alway the same number and > therefore the restriction varies. If it were otherwise, I would > regard the sentence as poorly written and due for major revision. It is poorly written, but not likely to be revised any time soon. > So let me ask this question, can allies that are able to play > discipline cards able to play cards that specify vampire only? If the card requires a discipline, yes. [Card Text] > If they are, why? No, [Card Text]. > I understand that rule 1.4 allows card text to > override rules, however, in the case of a political actions, I do not > see the text overriding the rules. Try reading the card again. > Example would be the an ally wanting to use Charming Lobby, > as was presented somewhere earlier in this thread. > Rules state - Allies can not call referendums. > An ally able to use Presence wants to pay Charming Lobby to try and > bypass this restriction. Charming Lobby text reads - "+1 stealth > political action. Call a referendum. If the referendum passes, then > the next referendum called thereafter passes automatically. (S) As > above, and this vampire gains 2 votes for the first referendum." > If allies can not call referendums in the rules and the card text > specifically states "Call a referendum", are you telling me that > enables bypasss capability? Yes. > How? Card Text. The ally in question, Herald of Topheth, may play ALL presence cards. This does not exclude Charming Lobby. Therefore, the Herald may call a political action by playing a Charming Lobby. > The logic does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, it does. > Now back to the sentence - play basic (discipline) cards as if a > vampire with a capacity of (some number). I can understand there > being some cards that restrict usage based upon capacity level. An > example could be Precognizant Mobility if an ally was able to play > basic Auspex cards as a vampire with a capacity of 3. This would mean > that the ally could untap another vampire or ally that either had a > capacity of 2 or less, or a cost of 2 or less. Inferior Auspex grants the ability to untap any ally regardless of cost with Precognizant Mobility, as allies do not have "ages". [Card Text] > However, I do not see the justification of just taking the fragment > "as a vampire" constitutes your new ruling based upon current text. So? > Now if an ally with this sentence - ally may play basic (discipline) > cards as a vampire; I would then understand the reasoning to bring > out a ruling as you have presented. It does. It allows them to play cards as a specifically aged vampire, as allies do not have age. > But just to take something out of context and > making a ruling on it, is a mistake. Right. That's why this has taken 6 years to get added. It isn't taken out of context, it has been worked on and considered for quite some time. > I have also viewed the sentence - play basic (discipline) cards as if > a vampire with a capacity of (some number) - to also represent an > upper limit as to the amount of life that ally could expend within one > turn where it might use more than one allowable discipline card that > had blood costs. And to also set the upper limit on any one allowable > discipline card the ally could use overall. Example would be - Shadow > Court Satyr. It has the sentence "may only use the basic ability of a > discipline card as a vampire with a capacity of 1. Therefore it could > not be brought out with a Decapitate as it requires 2 blood and the > Saytr can only play discipline cards as a vampire with a capacity of > 1. If it could play a presence action card, it could play Charming Lobby, as there is no restriction on Charming Lobby limiting it to older vampires. If Igo the Hungry can play the card, then so can an ally with the ability to play the card. > Please show me where this does not follow a logical order based upon > the complete sentence. Please show me where you made sense in this thread? The entire sentence is being considered. The ally plays cards "as a vampire of capacity X" is equivalent to "as a vampire" if the card does not restrict itself by capacity. > Otherwise, why would you have allies that could use some basic > disipline cards as a vampire with a capacity of varying numbers? To allow future designers to create cards that some allies and vampires can play but not others. See Death of My Conscience for example. It cannot be played by any of the allies that can play Potence cards. > Why not just make them all the same? Right, why have variety in a card game? Can't we all just play "Go Fish?" > Instead you have different numbers > to restrict the amount of life an ally and expend in one turn and to > restrict it from using certain basic discipline cards that do not > explictly state that the card is only useable by a vampire. No, the different numbers allow future cards to be printed that are playable by certain allies and vampires and not others. Game balance can be preserved. > <snip> > > Ex Nihilo and Rutor's Hand are the usual examples (since allies > > currently exist to play these cards). > Oh... So allies now have the capability to play cards that are > reserved for vampires only. Always have. > This does not meet the "press to test" button criteria. And this criteria is documented where in the rules, exactly? > An ally is not a vampire. Whatever happened to just > following card text? We are. Read the ally cards. > Rutor's Hand has the following sentence in it > that logically excludes allies from playing it - "Put this card on the > acting vampire". And the ally playing the card is playing it "as a vampire of capacity X", so may play the card. > If you were to follow that direction of thought, you > would see that while allies may have the capability to play basic > discipline card as a vampire with some kind of capacity level, it does > not in fact make them vampires. Correct. The ally is always an ally, it is simply treated as a vampire for those specific cards that its text allows it to play. > It just means they have access to > cards not normally allowed to allies as a whole. Right. Those granted by their cards text. > > The capacity level is set because some cards that require disciplines > > refer to the capacity of the vampire playing it (since all such cards > > are written under the assumption that they will be played by vampires, > > per the rules). > Really? Yes. > Where in the rules does it state that? In the Credits. Designers: L. Scott Johnson > If it is due to the > "As a vampire" fragment that is being taken out of context, then the > logic is flawed. It is neither out of context, nor flawed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, 01 May 2002 11:05:33 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > > > >RULINGS: > > > >EAGLE'S SIGHT won't change a Methuselah's "I don't block" decision. It > >allows a non-target Methuselah to block directed action, and allows a > >Methuselah other than the predator or prey to block an undirected action. > >It won't overcome any other obstacle to blocking (like stealth, > >Seduction, Day Operation, or a prior "I don't block" decision). > > Why does this state 'block an undirected action'? Clearly Eagles > Sight allows you to attempt a block of ANY action by ANY minion, and > thus would include directed as well as undirected actions. You've read too hastily. Try it again. It states "undirection action" becuase undirected actions are not excluded. It also states "directed action", and for the same reason. > >Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the > >single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a > >new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or > >Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to > >end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after > >combat (see Majesty ruling above). > > > > Umm, since when did Psyche become a Direct Intervention as well? (May > 1st apparently) > > Horrible ruling this. It should just delay the torpor/CFear damage > until combat truly ends. Like it delays the Form of Mist action continuance, eh? Oh, wait. It doesn't. Shoot. Now it's all consistent and stuff. Sorry. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >Matt Latham wrote: >> This stands on its own as the best possible argument to me Damnans. >> Seems so simple and intuitive. Keep the intention of the "disciplined" >> allies (ie mortal or supernatural creatures with above-human >> abilities) without turning them into temporary vampires. >(List some cards that wouldn't work right under this rule) IMO only Thin Blood is a real problem. Some cards are less useful but if that wasn't a problem for Concealed Weapon and Chainsaw why start now? In the long term, though, Damman's suggestion is the way to go. Perhaps it would require too much errata but it's the "right" solution. Inevitably, there will be some displinary cards that should not be used by allies (for game or world considerations) and some that can. You're never going to write a rule on the ally card that covers all the bases. The disciplinary cards themselves must either permit or deny use by allies, by the choice of "this vampire" or "this minion". In hindsight, no card should say "A vampire should only" in lieu of "A minion should only" unless the restriction should only apply to vampires. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD12A43...@white-wolf.com>... > Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > So if a Rafastio Ghoul strikes with Burst of Sunlight and the opponent > > dodges, the Rafastio ghoul will be in torpor with 2 life? > > Yes, unless he prevents the damage (assuming he started with 2 life). Okie. Was never a fan of that deck anyways. That being said, I think this is just asking for trouble, as if the 112 replies to this thread so far aren't enough. It reminds me a lot of some old and bizarre M:tG combos where you could "break" the game's engine; spells that never resolve, things getting sent to limbo that shouldn't be there, effect loops that prevent the game from continuing, etc.. The timing for this seems a bit suspect. Ghoul plays BoS during strike announcement. Let's say, purely for example, that his opponent, Smudge, plays Dodge! as his strike (ghoul = acting minion). After stike announcement we move on to strike resolution. Smudge's dodge goes off first protecting him/his stuff from the opposing minion's strike. Ghoul's BoS goes off next. Smudge dodged so he has no damage applied to him, and the ghoul takes 1 aggravated damage. It seems that at this point BoS is done with. Now there is a chance for damage prevention. This occurs before the ghoul would be sent to torpor. However, at this point, the ghoul isn't doing anything that relates to BoS. So, he shouldn't be a vampire at this point. And thus, when fails to prevent the damage, he just burns the blood.What's wrong with that?

On Sat, 04 May 2002 18:54:06 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> Umm, since when did Psyche become a Direct Intervention as well? (May >> 1st apparently) >> >> Horrible ruling this. It should just delay the torpor/CFear damage >> until combat truly ends. > >Like it delays the Form of Mist action continuance, eh? >Oh, wait. It doesn't. Shoot. Now it's all consistent and stuff. Sorry. > I take it that you feel it doesnt then? So psyche v FOM (for ex) would trump FOM entirely and the +1 stllth part fizzles too? That also makes no sense. Consistency is one thing, overpowering cards is another. T

On Sat, 04 May 2002 18:54:06 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Umm, since when did Psyche become a Direct Intervention as well? (May >> 1st apparently) >> >> Horrible ruling this. It should just delay the torpor/CFear damage >> until combat truly ends. > >Like it delays the Form of Mist action continuance, eh? >Oh, wait. It doesn't. Shoot. Now it's all consistent and stuff. Sorry. > Actually how is this consistent with the ruling that a combat continued after a catatonic fear will delay the damage until the new combat is finished? If everything was 'consistent' that damage effect would fizzle as well. T

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<fa4ace86f944cfcd75a...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > "Ramsteiner" asked: > > > > Ok, so the statement on ally cards that is the primary reason for this > > new ruling is "as a vampire"? Is this correct? > > Card text, yes. > Thank you for answering that as it relieves me from having to figure out exactly what other reasons there could be for this ruling. > > > I am not sure how it would lead to this type of ruling. > > Reading card text. > I have read the card text and the fragment being taken out of the sentence text is leading to just more problems. > > > > Current rules state that allies treat aggravated damage as normal > > damage (bottom of 6.4.6). > > Current rules state that allies can not call referendums (6.1.7). > > 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards > Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > Rule 1.4. is clearly understood by this member of the V:TES community. However, while the rule exists it does not lend precedence to giving allies the ability to disregard other printed text on cards when you combine them with what is already stated within the rules. > > > Allies that can play discipline cards based upon the ally's card text > > states the following each time, "This ally may use (some discipline at > > basic or inferior) as a vampire with a capacity of (some number)". > > What I see is a fragment from this sentence being taken out of context > > to make a new ruling rather than dealing with the whole sentence as a > > whole. The capacity number set on allies is there to restrict their > > usage of some discipline cards. It is not always the same number and > > therefore the restriction varies. If it were otherwise, I would > > regard the sentence as poorly written and due for major revision. > > It is poorly written, but not likely to be revised any time soon. > Cool. If it is poorly written, then why the bloody hell did LSJ and other designers continue using the same text with the new expansions? I know you are not LSJ and therefore am not expecting an answer. However, if LSJ could answer it I would greatly appreciate it. I throw it back to you Lasombra, Read The Text. The whole text that makes up the sentence, not the little piece within it. That little piece has a modifiers attached to it that can not be separated from it to clearly identify what the sentence means to the average player who takes the time to read it and then review it in accordance with the rest of the rules. > > > So let me ask this question, can allies that are able to play > > discipline cards able to play cards that specify vampire only? > > If the card requires a discipline, yes. > [Card Text] > That would not make any sense. If such is the case, then why would any designer muddle the card text with useless text in an already exclusive type of cards that allies do not have access to in the first place? Simple. To further exclude certain cards from allies as they are not vampires, just allies. > > > If they are, why? > > No, [Card Text]. > Such an explanation. Ok. Let us again reread card text on the allies in question read as follows: (some ally) may play cards requiring basic (discipline) as a vampire with a capacity of (some number ranging from 1-5, currently). Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life. Now let us see how this reads in plain English. If allies are not normally able to play discipline cards the first sentence above says it may, however, there are restrictions. It may only play the basic level of such cards and it can only play the cards that do not exceed the capability of a vampire at a specified capacity. It does not contain any text that states that when playing such cards it stops being an ally and now enters the vampire ranks (even for just a smidgen of time). It says it may play cards that allies in general are normally denied use, because everybody knows that discipline cards are not normally useable by allies. But to assist in further defining this greatly expanded capability of the ally, it does set some limits upon the ally's use of whatever chosen discipline(s) the text states it can use. It states that it can only use such cards at the basic level and at a certain capacity limit. Now why would it state that? What in the hell did the designers have in mind when they wrote that? After all, just how many discipline cards at the normal level restrict usage based upon capacity? Upon a general scan, I can see some cards that indicate usage upon younger minions or vampires, but I am not finding it for exact capacity levels. It also has clarifying text to inform you that normal blood costs are paid with life and any blood gain from card play is actually a life gain to the ally. > > > I understand that rule 1.4 allows card text to > > override rules, however, in the case of a political actions, I do not > > see the text overriding the rules. > > Try reading the card again. > I have read it again. In fact, I reread the text several times. Allies cannot call referendums per the rules. Card text within Charming Lobby states Call a referendum. Hmmm... now where did allies can not call referendums get tossed out the window. The card text within Charming Lobby does not contain text stating allies can now start voting. It states call a referendum and if allies are not allowed to call referendums then they cannot use Charming Lobby to do so. Read my statement above. The ally does not ever stop being an ally, it just gains use of some cards that it would normally be denied use if it did not have the above sentence text. > > > Example would be the an ally wanting to use Charming Lobby, > > as was presented somewhere earlier in this thread. > > > Rules state - Allies can not call referendums. > > An ally able to use Presence wants to pay Charming Lobby to try and > > bypass this restriction. Charming Lobby text reads - "+1 stealth > > political action. Call a referendum. If the referendum passes, then > > the next referendum called thereafter passes automatically. (S) As > > above, and this vampire gains 2 votes for the first referendum." > > If allies can not call referendums in the rules and the card text > > specifically states "Call a referendum", are you telling me that > > enables bypass capability? > > Yes. > > > How? > > Card Text. > > The ally in question, Herald of Topheth, may play ALL presence cards. > This does not exclude Charming Lobby. Therefore, the Herald may > call a political action by playing a Charming Lobby. > An ally, like the Herald, may make use of presence cards that would normally be denied it's use simply because of it being an ally. It does not state it may use all such cards. The Herald's card text does not say it is a V:TES vampire, it states it is an ally. Check the card type. It is an ally. Allies cannot call referendums and the card text in Charming Lobby says Call a Referendum. Now where do you miss the rolling logic in this? Another example would be the following: Just because you can go out and purchase a gun in the US does not give you the right to walk around with it in a concealed manner or give you a license to kill. It simply provides you the right to make the purchase. Now I understand that V:TES is a card game and the example I used is real life, however, logic is logic. It makes no difference where it is applied. > > > The logic does not stand up to scrutiny. > > Yes, it does. > No, it does not for the reasons I have stated above. > > > Now back to the sentence - play basic (discipline) cards as if a > > vampire with a capacity of (some number). I can understand there > > being some cards that restrict usage based upon capacity level. An > > example could be Precognizant Mobility if an ally was able to play > > basic Auspex cards as a vampire with a capacity of 3. This would mean > > that the ally could untap another vampire or ally that either had a > > capacity of 2 or less, or a cost of 2 or less. > > Inferior Auspex grants the ability to untap any ally regardless of > cost with Precognizant Mobility, as allies do not have "ages". > [Card Text] > Your correction is noted. I did fail to notice the word "an" in my typing which does make the text read differently. > > > However, I do not see the justification of just taking the fragment > > "as a vampire" constitutes your new ruling based upon current text. > > So? > I am so glad you care. > > > Now if an ally with this sentence - ally may play basic (discipline) > > cards as a vampire; I would then understand the reasoning to bring > > out a ruling as you have presented. > > It does. It contains "as a vampire" as part of the sentence. The meaning is not being applied correctly. > It allows them to play cards as a specifically aged vampire, > as allies do not have age. > You are correct, it does allow the ally to play cards (of specified discipline(s)) as a vampire of a specified capacity. It does not, however, state that it stopped being an ally. I can see how the sentence, badly written as it is, can go both ways. One-way allows the ally full use of all discipline cards with all the inherent difficulties associated with it. (Example: Rutor's Hand's text: Place on the acting vampire. The minion performing the action is an ally that is allowed access to thaumaturgy cards and only when playing such cards it becomes a vampire.) The other way is the ally does not stop being an ally, but is now allowed access to specified set of discipline cards and can only play them as a vampire with a specified capacity level. This way places cards accessible to allies into a three-tier system. Level 1 - normal access to all allies; Level 2 - access to specified discipline cards that would normally be restricted to all allies that do not require an acting vampire to perform; Level 3 - still restricted cards as they contain text that specifically states the requirement of placing on the acting vampire and/or due to blood costs on the card. Access to calling referendums would still be denied to allies as 1) rules state they can not call them, 2) discipline cards (like Charming Lobby) have the statement "Call a referendum" printed within the card text. Allies would still treat aggravated damage as normal damage and you would not see any occasion where an ally could go to torpor. > > > But just to take something out of context and > > making a ruling on it, is a mistake. > > Right. > That's why this has taken 6 years to get added. It isn't > taken out of context, it has been worked on and considered > for quite some time. > Damn. This problem was identified 6 years ago, huh? If that is the case, why would LSJ and White Wolf have allowed text like this to remain in place and stay within the game inside their release of the three previous expansions; Sabbat War, Final Nights and Bloodlines? Hell, LSJ and the design people could have easily rewritten the new allies to state exactly what we all needed to read to understand their functionality. The coming release of Camarilla would complete the circle in the area of the allies, as they would have had the opportunity to touch base on all of them. > > > I have also viewed the sentence - play basic (discipline) cards as if > > a vampire with a capacity of (some number) - to also represent an > > upper limit as to the amount of life that ally could expend within one > > turn where it might use more than one allowable discipline card that > > had blood costs. And to also set the upper limit on any one allowable > > discipline card the ally could use overall. Example would be - Shadow > > Court Satyr. It has the sentence "may only use the basic ability of a > > discipline card as a vampire with a capacity of 1. Therefore it could > > not be brought out with a Decapitate as it requires 2 blood and the > > Saytr can only play discipline cards as a vampire with a capacity of > > 1. > > If it could play a presence action card, it could play Charming Lobby, > as there is no restriction on Charming Lobby limiting it to older > vampires. If I go the Hungry can play the card, then so can an ally > with the ability to play the card. > Sure, in the same way I go could go out and equip with Kali's Fang. He could do it but it would be burned immediately afterward if he weren’t previously converted to the Assamite clan. This is no different. The Herald may play the Charming Lobby, but as it is an ally the action would fizzle and the card discarded under what I am stating how the card reads. > > > Please show me where this does not follow a logical order based upon > > the complete sentence. > > Please show me where you made sense in this thread? > The entire sentence is being considered. > The ally plays cards "as a vampire of capacity X" is > equivalent to "as a vampire" if the card does not restrict > itself by capacity. > I have provided it (as I see it) above. If you can step back and look at it just as objectively as I have then maybe you can see where it is I have come up with the statements I have made above. One way is clean and supports itself (without tossing the rules out the window completely and creating corner case rulings) and the other leads to more questions on how allies can use cards that specifically state "Put this card on the acting vampire". To name a few cards that does state this and does not make any sense for an ally to have follows: Bauble Black Metamorphosis Blessings of Chaos Carrion Coffin Heart of Darkness Marked Path Masochism Return to Innocence (Yes, I know it is banned from tournament play) Rutor's Hand Shadow of the Beast Sins of the Cauchemar Spying Mission Tier of Souls ...to name a few. These cards all state "Play on the acting vampire", however, with what I have read, these are perfectly legal for allies to use if they have access to the correct discipline. I can see where LSJ, with the Rutor's Hand card would want to go in this direction of allowing allies who play a discipline card suffers any aggravated damage effects it may impart. But why, if he is going to reverse something he has stated was allowable (which I have never heard of before), continue down that same road? He is already reversing one decision, why not another? Do you honestly believe that there will be no more allies that have access to discipline cards in future sets so all of the bases are covered with these rulings? > > > Otherwise, why would you have allies that could use some basic > > discipline cards as a vampire with a capacity of varying numbers? > > To allow future designers to create cards that some allies and > vampires can play but not others. See Death of My Conscience > for example. It cannot be played by any of the allies that can > play Potence cards. > I had already come to that conclusion and agree with it being a ceiling on allies wanting to play certain discipline cards. Another example (as I had previous stated in my other post but you decided didn't need to be posted here) is Shadow Court Satyr. It contains the text: "When Shadow Court Satyr comes into play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, Satyr may use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from your hand. If the card has a cost, he pays its cost in life to use its ability. If the card requires a Discipline, he may only use the basic ability of that card as a vampire with a capacity of 1..." The capacity limitation of 1 restricts from cards that cost more than it's capacity. Thus, Pushing the Limit is OK for it to acquire, but Decapitate is not. > > > Why not just make them all the same? > > Right, why have variety in a card game? > Can't we all just play "Go Fish?" > I would have hoped you would have seen what I meant by my question. I am asking why do the allies with access to a specified set of discipline cards have varying levels of capacity ability. I was not asking for ‘Go Fish’. However, on the subject of Death of My Conscience, that card came out with what set? Ancient Hearts? How many allies were out that could use discipline cards previous to Ancient Hearts? Zero In Ancient Hearts, exactly 3 allies came out that could use discipline cards based upon their card text. 1) Akhenaten, 2) Kherebutu, 3) Talaq Of these allies, Akhenaten has access to Necromancy discipline cards; Kherebutu has access to Necromancy discipline cards; Talaq has access to both Quietus and Thaumaturgy discipline cards. Now I would like to believe the designers had the foresight to think more allies would come out in later expansions that would require the type of beginning restrictive text seen in Death of my Conscience. They, the designers, eventually did produce an ally to with access to Potence. It is Ghouled Street Thug and makes it's appearance in Sabbat but it is restricted to a playing Potence cards the same other cap 2 vampires. Now comes the interesting part... Death of my Conscience is the only card in the set that has this kind of restrictive text. Wow! Then I read LSJ has apparently come out in the past stating that allies can play discipline cards, even if the card has the text, "Place on the acting vampire". Which flies in the face of what the ally card has on it, namely an Ally card type indicator and card text telling you it is an ally. Was this particular ruling made to try and strengthen allies? Now LSJ is putting forth a new ruling that allies, when using discipline cards that can give them aggravated damage, are sent to torpor. So now allies may now use discipline cards that defy ally restrictions on referendums and they are now eligible to receive aggravated damage the same as vampires and can go to torpor for it. > > > Instead you have different numbers > > to restrict the amount of life an ally and expend in one turn and to > > restrict it from using certain basic discipline cards that do not > > explicitly state that the card is only useable by a vampire. > > No, the different numbers allow future cards to be printed that are > playable by certain allies and vampires and not others. Game balance > can be preserved. > Game balance can be preserved the other way as well, without the introduction of allies calling referendums, being vulnerable to aggravated damage and able to go to torpor. If LSJ and the design team want to make an ally that has the ability to call referendums, then make one that specifically states that capability. This backdoor method of "they have access to Presence discipline cards, Charming Lobby is a Presence card, therefore the ally can now call referendums should be completely reassessed. Especially as the apparent reasoning is based on the premise of when the ally plays the Presence discipline Charming Lobby, he becomes a vampire (Pro tem) and can initiate the calling of a vote. Rubbish. I completely disagree with this. All I see is the sentence granting access to cards it normally would be able to use and is limited in playing these cards as vampires with some capacity level. I do not see where "the stretch" in wording encompasses access to cards that once played are put on acting vampires or allowed access to referendums. In actuality, I can do away with the aggravated damage ruling part. If an ally does not have the ability to play cards that, once played, are placed on the acting vampire simply because the acting minion is NOT a vampire. It just has the ability to play cards a set of discipline cards. And only so long as those discipline cards do not exceed blood costs in it's artificial capacity limit, does not retain the card after use and does not violate the rules against allies calling referendums. If the allies with discipline playing capability follow this method, then you will not have allies putting themselves into torpor from aggravated damage due to card text. (Burst of Sunlight - Strike: 1R, aggravated, to all vampires in combat. Last time I checked the ally card has both card text and a card type specifying it to be an ally. So in the same sense, if LSJ makes the ruling that allies playing discipline cards are affected by the aggravated damage because they become vampires (Pro tem) in the rules, then it should easily be ignored as their card text shows them to be otherwise. It states them to be an ally, which then has a reference in the rules that allies treat aggravated damage as normal damage. Damn, was that easy to follow? Which of the cards take precedence? And when do we start following the rule book again? > > > <snip> > > > Ex Nihilo and Rutor's Hand are the usual examples (since allies > > > currently exist to play these cards). > > > Oh... So allies now have the capability to play cards that are > > reserved for vampires only. > > Always have. > Never seen it and again it does not make any sense to me as the cards are placed on the acting vampire. Where is the vampire? All I see is an ally. > > > This does not meet the "press to test" button criteria. > > And this criteria is documented where in the rules, exactly? > Point taken. And what I meant is it does not follow any reasoning I can easily see much less inform other players. > > > An ally is not a vampire. Whatever happened to just > > following card text? > > We are. > Read the ally cards. > I have and they all have text saying they are an ally and they all have the nifty symbol indicating Ally card type. Most are not allowed to any discipline cards (exclusively a vampire minion's right to use) and some are. The difference is within each ally's card text. I see the text as granting the few allies access to cards of selected disciplines with a pre-set capacity limit that is on par with a vampire's capacity. This is to establish a limit or restriction in playing discipline cards that vampires of like capacity also face. > > > Rutor's Hand has the following sentence in it > > that logically excludes allies from playing it - "Put this card on the > > acting vampire". > > And the ally playing the card is playing it "as a vampire of > capacity X", so may play the card. > So now we have we conflicting card texts to follow. Ok. Let us go with Rutor's Hand being useable by an ally. According to the ally card text, it can play the card because it may play it as a vampire with capacity X. Rutor's Hand text states that the card is to be placed on the acting vampire. Ok. Now that the action is complete, when does the ally become an ally again? My reason for asking is further down in the Rutor's Hand text. "Beginning with your next turn, the vampire gets one additional untap during each of your minion phases for the remainder of the game." Oh goody! So now either the ally either remains a vampire so it can make use of the card or it just wasted life to pay for the blood cost and whatever method it had available to avoid the aggravated damage and getting lost in torpor (forever?) But in the off chance that the ally with a Rutor's Hand reverts to it's ally status after gaining it and is also able to ignore the "vampire" reference within the Rutor's Hand card text to perform it's additional untap due to some other obscure ruling (which is not on the White Wolf web-site), it can now do something else that no other vampire with thaumaturgy. If the ally is in fact an ally once again after gaining Rutor's Hand, it can gain more than one due to card text. It is after all, an ally. "A vampire can have only one Rutor's Hand". Neat trick. > > > If you were to follow that direction of thought, you > > would see that while allies may have the capability to play basic > > discipline card as a vampire with some kind of capacity level, it does > > not in fact make them vampires. > > Correct. > The ally is always an ally, it is simply treated as a vampire for > those specific cards that its text allows it to play. > I am glad to see we agree on at least part of your statement. I do not agree with the special allies (the ones containing the debated sentence) being treated as a vampire at anytime. See my statements above. > > > It just means they have access to > > cards not normally allowed to allies as a whole. > > Right. Those granted by their cards text. > > > > The capacity level is set because some cards that require disciplines > > > refer to the capacity of the vampire playing it (since all such cards > > > are written under the assumption that they will be played by vampires, > > > per the rules). > > > Really? > > Yes. > Again, we come back to that disturbing set of cards within V:TES that possess the following criteria: 1) Is a discipline card 2) Limits play based upon the vampire playing it A whole set of 1, "Death of my Conscience". As it currently stands, not even the Herald could play Death of my Conscience as it's capacity limit is at 5 and DomC requires vampires with a capacity above 5. Either LSJ is introducing some really beefed up allies in the Camarilla expansion or this is a reflection of a poor ruling. > > > Where in the rules does it state that? > > In the Credits. > Designers: L. Scott Johnson > That tells me nothing. Are you trying to tell me that LSJ designed all the cards for V:TES since it changed from Jyhad on? > > > If it is due to the > > "As a vampire" fragment that is being taken out of context, then the > > logic is flawed. > > It is neither out of context, nor flawed. > Incorrect. It is flawed by my reasoning. > > Carpe noctem. > > Lasombra > Further discussion on this will with me have to wait as I will be gone for the rest of the week. That does not mean I do not want to talk this through, as I really want to understand how the series of rulings has lead to this. Enjoy! Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein > http://www.TheLasombra.com

[ quoted text not captured ] It does. [RTR 01-MAY-2002] Thanks for reaffirming the position. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD2AEBD...@white-wolf.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Pretty much any solution that doesn't require us to pretend > > that allies are vampires would be simpler, yes. > > I'd think it might be productive to say that when an ally > > "plays cards that require discipline X as a vampire of > > capacity Y", it is that card that is played as if a > > vampire were playing it, not the ally that is treated as > > a vampire. IE, "as a vampire of capacity Y [would play > > it]", not "as [if this ally were] a vampire of capacity Y". For a change, I waited a bit before reacting - and found I certainly do not mind the new rulings. I also have no problem with Rafaisto's getting hit by their own BoS, or Heralds using CL. Which effect is desired from a designer intent I cannot judge, of course. I even find the current phraseology on the allies bit quite understandable, as well as the combat ends/psyche! etc. argument. However, I do think Joshua might be on to even clearer phraseology regarding allies with disciplines, at least with the intent of his statement. I like attributing the 'vampireness' to the card, and not the Ally. And since it is now clear the matter is going back to RT review, I wish to add something that might be constructive, hopefully. Unfortunately, taking Joshua's "card that is played as if a vampire were playing it" still means the Rafaisto will get hit with 1 agg himself, since he would be the vampire that the card would be "as if played by". Using the second suggestion ("as a vampire of capacity Y [would play it]") still leaves an ally vulnerable, if I interpret things correctly. (I know the previous sentences are horrible, but to my dismay I cannot find an easy way to say it in a clearer fashion right now. It's almost as bad as time-travel and the Hitchhiker's Guide.) What might work is something like: "The ally may play cards requiring X by paying an amount of life equal to its blood cost, with a maximum of Y. Any blood gained or lost is considered to be life. (Text on the played card referring to 'this (acting) vampire' refers to 'this (acting) minion'. Mandatory effects that result from the card being played also occur.)" If it were desired that a capacity be attached to this action or combat card, (with regards to effects such as obedience, or 'younger' etc.) a line could be added in the manner of: "cards that refer to a (base) capacity use a value of Z." I'm not really sure I'm helping out here, unfortunately. Maybe it'll spark an idea somewhere. Tobias Deventer

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD66E32...@white-wolf.com>... > Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sat, 04 May 2002 18:54:06 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Umm, since when did Psyche become a Direct Intervention as well? (May > > >> 1st apparently) > > >> > > >> Horrible ruling this. It should just delay the torpor/CFear damage > > >> until combat truly ends. > > > > > >Like it delays the Form of Mist action continuance, eh? > > >Oh, wait. It doesn't. Shoot. Now it's all consistent and stuff. Sorry. > > > > > > > Actually how is this consistent with the ruling that a combat > > continued after a catatonic fear will delay the damage until the new > > combat is finished? > > > > If everything was 'consistent' that damage effect would fizzle as > > well. > > It does. [RTR 01-MAY-2002] > Thanks for reaffirming the position. Hi everyone, reading those post is to me enough sad, allies that can go to torpor. Why??? It´s for the balance of the Game?? The quote " like a vampire when they play a card requiring discipline " isn´t a excuse for this rule, in RPG anbd i think as here in the card game it was treated as humans o supernaturals with ablities like a vampire , not as vampires, and the idea was good. But now those humans/super are treated in the same way that vampires to effects of cards that requires vampires to play. So Talaq, a Human Mage go to torpor if he play A Burst OF Sulight in a vampire, but... HE IS HUMAN!!!! can´t go to torpor!!!!! Plz LSJ rethink this rule!!! Maybe that the allies now are more playabled , the games is more balanced, but it´s so ilogical. Too many players like me think that the rule is out of context, humans are humans & vamps are vamps. If a ally can play a card requiring a vampire, then, the best to fix this is " allies cannot play cards that require a vampire", so , to me , is better that see as a Ally go to torpor cause he´s utilizing a strike that require a vamp. That´s all. Most Regards: Ulugh Beg ( Upgrade Tremere IC/Justicar??)) ;-)

LSJ wrote: > > Damnans wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > CurtAdams wrote: > > > > In addition to creating all these complicated issues about > > > > torporized minions and when, exactly, the allies turn > > > > back into allies - (after a block? the action's still "in > > > > the air" so the FoM can operate) - the RPGer's are > > > > > > There are no complicated rules about torporized minions > > > nor when, exactly, the ally "turns back" into an ally. > > > > > > The ally is always an ally. > > > > > > The effect is performed as if he were a vampire, however, > > > by explicit card text. > > > > Wouldn't it be much easier and less complicated for allies with the > > ability to play Discipline cards to have the following text?: > > [...] > > Thus, allies could only play Discipline cards not requiring vampires to > > play (such as Burst of Sunlight or Enchant Kindred) > > Possibly. But that would be errata, and contrary to designer intent > in many cases. Cards requiring disciplines require vampires by default. > Well it would play out and make more sense that the allies in torpor situation. Since Torpor has already been pointed out to be special to vampires, perhaps the simple clause/ruling, that a ally in torpor simply returns the active region at the completion of the action. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > (And, you know, Ghouled Street Thug *already* can't use > > > Torn Signpost for any productive effect. :-) > > > > Oooh! Lies! > > A Bonecrafted/Languid/Diseased/etc. GST would gain strength > > by playing a TS. :-) > > Hmm. Must've missed something. I fell for your bait and assumed > that GST had a strength of 2. But he's only got a 1. So he'd > benefit from the TS under "normal" situations, as well. > > Perhaps you're thinking of Blood Brother Ambush? > This reminds me of how the new ruling might effect this card. Prior to this BBA could play a burning wrath, but as soon as the card played the BBA burned dur to not having any life left. However since the new ruling seems to make the ally act as a vampire till at least the damage resolution, the BBA should now be able to effectively play burning wrath since a vampire with zero blood is able to fight until hit with another point of damage to send them to torpor. Correct? and if not, how can you explain that in light of the current rulings. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Ben Peal wrote: > > However, if a Ghouled Street Thug were to play Shattering Blow > > "as a vampire", and a Rafastio Ghoul played Burst of Sunlight > > "as a vampire" in the same combat, the following would happen: > > > > The Rafastio Ghoul would receive one point of aggravated damage, > > sending the Rafastio Ghoul to torpor. > > > > The Ghouled Street Thug would receive no damage. > > Correct. > What about when a allies attempts to use some generic combat card requiring a vampire and the opposing minion counters with Rotschreck? I'd guess this too will send that ally to torpor, correct? Raille

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Presumably, as a result of this ruling, there is going to be something introduced > > > in the future to get an ally out of torpor? > > Not at all. If it bothers enough people, we'll probably just add a sentence > > to the rulebook saying that if an ally is forced to torpor, it is burned > > instead. > > That would be ideal. I don't have a problem with the fact that an ally takes the > damage as aggravated thus forcing the trip to what would otherwise be torpor. > However, torpor applies only to vamps. Historically in the CCG and also in the > RPG. It is just counter-intuitive otherwise -- a mortal in a state that is really only > applicable to vampires. > > > I don't think it'll come to that, however. > > It really should. > Agreed. Either a statement burning the allies, or a statement saying allies in torpor return to the ready region. The point of having allies in torpor has created a uproar and was much talked about at the Last Regional Tournement I was at. Raille

Raille wrote: > What about when a allies attempts to use some generic combat card > requiring a vampire and the opposing minion counters with Rotschreck? > > I'd guess this too will send that ally to torpor, correct? No. Rotschreck cannot be played on allies (card text). And there's nothing (no effect or rule) which currently exists to allow Rotscrheck to be played as if the target ally were a vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > Since Torpor has already been pointed out to be special to vampires, > perhaps the simple clause/ruling, that a ally in torpor simply returns > the active region at the completion of the action. If such errata were needed, it would be worded as the ally burns rather than the ally becomes/remains ready, as previously indicated. But, as previously indicated, such errata would only be necessary to recitfy things for a WoD backstory perspective - it isn't needed for play balance or uniformity or any of the "normal" reasons for errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > Prior to this BBA could play a burning wrath, but as soon as the card > played the BBA burned dur to not having any life left. > > However since the new ruling seems to make the ally act as a vampire > till at least the damage resolution, the BBA should now be able to No. As stated many times, the new ruling doesn't make the ally act as a vampire til any time. The new ruling says that the effect of the card played as a vampire is handled as a vampire. > effectively play burning wrath since a vampire with zero blood is able > to fight until hit with another point of damage to send them to torpor. > > Correct? and if not, how can you explain that in light of the current > rulings. Not correct. The BBA pays his last life for the card. Then, separate from the resolution of the play of the card, he finds himself to be an ally with no life and is therefore burned. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CD7C862...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > Prior to this BBA could play a burning wrath, but as soon as the card > > played the BBA burned dur to not having any life left. > > > > However since the new ruling seems to make the ally act as a vampire > > till at least the damage resolution, the BBA should now be able to > > No. As stated many times, the new ruling doesn't make the ally act > as a vampire til any time. The new ruling says that the effect of > the card played as a vampire is handled as a vampire. > > > effectively play burning wrath since a vampire with zero blood is able > > to fight until hit with another point of damage to send them to torpor. > > > > Correct? and if not, how can you explain that in light of the current > > rulings. > > Not correct. The BBA pays his last life for the card. Then, separate > from the resolution of the play of the card, he finds himself to be > an ally with no life and is therefore burned. So really the only instances under which allies go to torpor could POSSIBLY arise are if : a: an ally plays burst of sunlight as a vampire b: a blocking ally under a dawn operation plays weather control as a vampire Otherwise they will handle agg damage as normal. These are the only two scenarios I could come up with where the minion would actually inflict damage that could be turned aggravated on themselves. Forgive me if I overlooked something, but I think this is the only way this could come into play. I thought a zip gun/dawn op scenario would also do that, but I forgot it doesn't require a discipline, so it doesn't count. Basically, that's the only limitation here, right? The discipline card has to have been played by the ally AND inflict agg damage on that ally. Oh...wait...there is another scenario: Shadow Court Sadyr with the reform body or mummify. Yeah...those are going to happen... What the hell is the problem here, people? Do that many people play with di scipline using allies that play burst of sunlight? Yes, thematically it doesn't fit...but still. Its SOOOO unbelievably corner-case that I can't really see it affecting the game all that much. Oh...wait...hold up...there will be an effect. Votes based on the number of minions controlled will be that much higher for all the allies you have in torpor. Well...they would've counted in the ready region also. Nevermind. That doesn't significantly affect the game. What I can't understand is why more people aren't throwing fits over one of the other rulings. I'd be more concerned with a minion card (psyche) interrupting the resolution of a master card (Rotschreck).

<snip> > I have read it again. In fact, I reread the text several times. > Allies cannot call referendums per the rules. Card text within > Charming Lobby states Call a referendum. > Hmmm... now where did allies can not call referendums get tossed out > the window. > The card text within Charming Lobby does not contain text stating > allies can now start voting. It states call a referendum and if > allies are not allowed to call referendums then they cannot use > Charming Lobby to do so. Read my statement above. The ally does not > ever stop being an ally, it just gains use of some cards that it would > normally be denied use if it did not have the above sentence text. > > Read up on how Charming Lobby works. You call the vote as part of the resolution of that action. The ally isn't calling a vote...they're charming the lobby. I have no issues with this at all since the Herald can play presence cards at inferior as a vampire of capacity three. Besides...do YOU vote with the baali? I can't see them being that great in a voting situation...maybe as a support vampire in a Followers of Set vote deck, but still. 3 pool for the Herald AFTER you've influenced out a Baali (minimum capacity 5) seems like a lot of work to call charming lobby when you could have just influenced out Giddy Fountain and get superior presence for the same cost. Just my two cents.

sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu writes: >What I can't understand is why more people aren't throwing fits over one of >the other rulings. I'd be more concerned with a minion card (psyche) >interrupting the resolution of a master card (Rotschreck). The interaction of combat ends/combat doesn't end is pretty complicated. Unlike BoS, there's no "obvious" thing to happen. It's made worse by the fact that Psyche and Telepathic Tracking are different in their effects - Psyche starts a new combat while TT continues one. I don't think the current change should apply to Psyche since it doesn't stop the combat from ending. So, if you Rotschreck, Rotshreck goes off since combat DID end, and then Psyche can't start a new combat since somebody's in torpor and it's now illegal. With TT, the old rule was a better game rule but in the game sense it does seem like TT [ quoted text not captured ]

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020507115650...@mb-dd.aol.com... > The interaction of combat ends/combat doesn't end is pretty complicated. > Unlike BoS, there's no "obvious" thing to happen. It's made worse by > the fact that Psyche and Telepathic Tracking are different in their effects - > Psyche starts a new combat while TT continues one. I don't think the > current change should apply to Psyche since it doesn't stop the combat > from ending. So, if you Rotschreck, Rotshreck goes off since combat DID > end, and then Psyche can't start a new combat since somebody's in torpor > and it's now illegal. I believe this rule is a result of how Psyche has to work to work at all. It's a combat card, so you have to play it "in combat". But combat has to have ended for it to be playable (at superior). So it "has to" work as a sort of interrupt, played "while" combat is ending as a result of some other card's effect (or when combat ends "normally"). Given that Psyche works against Strike: Combat Ends - *after* the S:CE resolves - it sort of makes sense that it can also "interrupt" Rotschreck's "end combat" instruction, since we have no reason to assume that Rotschreck produces a "stronger" combat-ending effect than S:CE does. I personally would prefer that the play/resolution of any one card not be interruptable at all (ie all of Rotschreck would happen "atomically" and once it was done Psyche wouldn't be playable) but since S:CE already essentially requires Psyche to work as an interrupt, I can see the reasoning behind it. I think. It's not obvious to me why "untap" effects should be exempt from being "after combat" either, though. Josh unless I don't.

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020507115650...@mb-dd.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I concur from a logic standpoint on what you say re: TT and Psyche and how they produce different effects. BUT, there is an inherent problem with a master card being overridden by a minion card. With the notable exception of Rewind Time which was designed and worded specifically for this, I can understand. Allowing a minion card to circumvent what's happening from a master is somewhat ridiculous. Beyond that, SUP Psyche reads "[CEL] Only usable at the end of a combat when both combatants are still ready. Enter combat with the opposing minion. This is a new combat." The opposing minion ISN'T ready. If I were playing a gangrel anti deck and one of them strikes with wolf claws for one aggravated hand damage and the other minion doesn't prevent the damage, combat ends immediately and the opposing minion goes to torpor. No press phase, nothing. The opposing minion has NO opportunity to play psyche as they are going to torpor and are not ready at that point. Why, then, should they be allowed to circumvent a master card that produces the same effect? Perhaps LSJ meant to clarify what happens in situations similar to the following: Samantha blocks dragos. She strikes with hands for 1 aggravated. Her controller plays Rotschreck. Samantha plays psyche. The opposing minion doesn't go to torpor, but a new combat begins. If it ONLY applied to instances such as this (the minion playing psyche is controlled by the same methusalah playing Rotschreck), I could at least understand the ruling. But allowing psyche to override Rotschreck just isn't plausible as the card text doesn't support this at all. Psyche can ONLY be played if both combatants are still ready. Same with telepathic tracking. Fast Reaction I can understand as there is NO ready requirement printed on the card (unless this has been added recently). Out of curiosity, LSJ, what happens in the following situation: Adonai blocks a vampire controlled by my predator and sends them to torpor. Can another untapped minion I control with auspex play fast reaction to enter combat with the torporized minion? Nothing on card text indicates I can't, so I guess its legal. In this scenario, how is aggravated damage handled? The vampire is "wounded" since its in torpor, correct? Would a single agg damage burn the opposing minion? I'm guessing yes, but will wait for your response. Would similar logic follow for a blocking minion in torpor and hidden lurker?

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ab8ukd$fp8r5$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] They probably would be included in this if the card text read "after combat, untap this vampire." But alas since Majesty reads: "[pre] Strike: combat ends. [PRE] As above, and this vampire may burn 1 blood to untap." and earth meld reads: [pro] Strike: combat ends. [PRO] As above, and untap this vampire. and meld with the land reads: [vic] Strike: combat ends and untap the opposing minion. [VIC] Strike: combat ends. So I totally agree with that part of the ruling as the untap is part of the resolution of the strike.

jtdu...@yahoo.com writes: >I believe this rule is a result of how Psyche has to work to >work at all. It's a combat card, so you have to play it "in >combat". But combat has to have ended for it to be playable >(at superior). So it "has to" work as a sort of interrupt, >played "while" combat is ending as a result of some other >card's effect (or when combat ends "normally"). IMO that's splitting hairs. Jyhad wasn't supposed to have interrupts and Psyche was obviously written as something that's played immediately after combat. There's just no good symbol for that and they weren't careful about the wording. >I personally would prefer that the play/resolution of any >one card not be interruptable at all (ie all of Rotschreck >would happen "atomically" and once it was done Psyche wouldn't >be playable) but since S:CE already essentially requires >Psyche to work as an interrupt, I can see the reasoning behind >it. I think. Me too. I don't like introducing a complex concept (interruption) to solve implications of a mildly careless wording. Rather, I'd view Majesty as an atomic end-combat-and-untap card and Psyche as a immediate response to the end combat, still immediate as the untap is an atomic part of the end combat event. Against Rotschreck it's unplayable since the 2 ready minions requirement isn't met. For Telepathic Tracking, it's less clear. Does it cancel the entire event ending combat or just the end combat component? I'd favor the latter but it's fuzzier. For consistency I'd want it to work like I think Psyche should but from a world-sense TT should catch Illusions of the kindred. OTOH, TT out of Rotschreck doesn't make sense, if the Rotschreck is assumed severe enough to send the target to torpor. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 06 May 2002 07:51:14 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 04 May 2002 18:54:06 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Umm, since when did Psyche become a Direct Intervention as well? (May >> >> 1st apparently) >> >> >> >> Horrible ruling this. It should just delay the torpor/CFear damage >> >> until combat truly ends. >> > >> >Like it delays the Form of Mist action continuance, eh? >> >Oh, wait. It doesn't. Shoot. Now it's all consistent and stuff. Sorry. >> > >> >> Actually how is this consistent with the ruling that a combat >> continued after a catatonic fear will delay the damage until the new >> combat is finished? >> >> If everything was 'consistent' that damage effect would fizzle as >> well. > >It does. [RTR 01-MAY-2002] >Thanks for reaffirming the position. > Ah. I was looking at the 11 of April rulings. I guess a new set of rulings will be posted on the webpage soon as a consequence. Again. *sigh* T

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020507143245...@mb-cv.aol.com... > Josh Duffin wrote: > >I personally would prefer that the play/resolution of any > >one card not be interruptable at all (ie all of Rotschreck > >would happen "atomically" and once it was done Psyche wouldn't > >be playable) but since S:CE already essentially requires > >Psyche to work as an interrupt, I can see the reasoning behind > >it. I think. > > Me too. I don't like introducing a complex concept (interruption) > to solve implications of a mildly careless wording. Rather, I'd > view Majesty as an atomic end-combat-and-untap card > and Psyche as a immediate response to the end combat, > still immediate as the untap is an atomic part of the end combat > event. Against Rotschreck it's unplayable since the 2 ready > minions requirement isn't met. This is close to what I'd prefer, but what would really be great would be if Rotschreck were re-worded to simply send the opposing minion to torpor before damage resolution. It seems like that would simplify things. I dislike the notion of minion cards beating master cards (played from the hand), and although the Psyche/Rotschreck thing doesn't really *bother* me, it'd be nice if it didn't work that way. I think that because of Telepathic Tracking, we could infer the existence of a "combat is about to end" phase, where Psyche and TT can be played, allowing for the combat/round to be restarted, without adding after-the-fact adjudications on when Psyche is meant to be played. A rewording of Psyche using TT's phrasing would be nice. > For Telepathic Tracking, it's less clear. Does it cancel the entire > event ending combat or just the end combat component? I'd > favor the latter but it's fuzzier. For consistency I'd want it If the latter, how do you deal with Catatonic Fear? Do you put the impending damage on a stack (in case of later CF) that is waiting for combat to end, or do you just ignore it? Again, I don't care either way personally, but I think it would be cleaner to cancel the entire event ending combat, including any untap effects, but I can see how the untap effect has no bearing on the status of the other minion, so it might not be cancelled. > to work like I think Psyche should but from a world-sense > TT should catch Illusions of the kindred. OTOH, TT out of > Rotschreck doesn't make sense, if the Rotschreck is assumed > severe enough to send the target to torpor. I'd like Psyche to work like TT does. :) To restate, my ideal "solution" to all of this requires errata to Psyche and Rotschreck. Not a great thing, all in all, but I think it might provide a better model of the RPG mechanics, as well as reduce confusion/inconsistency (re: interrupts). (Note that Rotschreck could still possibly using cleaning up.) Rotschreck: Master: out-of-turn. Play when a minion attempts to use an aggravated damage (strike?) against a vampire that is effective at the current range. The opposing vampire (vampire opposing the striking vampire?) **goes to torpor**, tapped, with this card on it before damage is resolved. During the vampire's next untap phase, burn this card instead of untapping the vampire. Psyche: [snip basic stuff and cel] [CEL] Only usable when both combatants are still ready and combat is **about to end** (with no uncancelled press to continue). Enter combat with the opposing minion. This is a new combat. (**emphasis added to the critical points) As far as I can tell, this would (while being errata, and less inherently desirable than a ruling) eliminate the opportunity for Psyche & TT to interrupt a master card (which is objectionable to me, and at least a couple of other players, from a backstory perspective); it would clean up the wording on Psyche, clearly identifying it as a combat card that is usable only in combat, and clear up any perceived timing issues, and provide a consistent wording template. I am unsure how this would change the resolution of any "S:CE and..." strikes. AFAICT, it would nullify "at the end of combat" stuff, but it would not nullify "S:CE and untap, and the like". I am not sure whether this is desirable or not (nor do I really care). Feedback requested from interested parties. :) Xian

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ab9nms$gn0bs$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > "CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20020507143245...@mb-cv.aol.com... <snip> > I'd like Psyche to work like TT does. :) That would be just great! But, in a sense, are they not (Psyche and TT) playable on the same time segment ? (above all with the new ruling stating that one cannot use effect to start new combat against other combat still pending) Anyway i agree: wording them the same way would be a very good thing. > > To restate, my ideal "solution" to all of this requires errata to Psyche and > Rotschreck. Not a great thing, all in all, but I think it might provide a > better model of the RPG mechanics, as well as reduce confusion/inconsistency > (re: interrupts). > > (Note that Rotschreck could still possibly using cleaning up.) > > Rotschreck: Master: out-of-turn. Play when a minion attempts to use an > aggravated damage (strike?) against a vampire that is effective at the current > range. The opposing vampire (vampire opposing the striking vampire?) **goes to > torpor**, tapped, with this card on it before damage is resolved. During the > vampire's next untap phase, burn this card instead of untapping the vampire. > Sounds really good, too. I think it should read "the opposing vampire goes to torpor before *strikes resolution*" (not even damage). > Psyche: > [snip basic stuff and cel] > [CEL] Only usable when both combatants are still ready and combat is **about to > end** (with no uncancelled press to continue). Enter combat with the opposing > minion. This is a new combat. > > (**emphasis added to the critical points) > > As far as I can tell, this would (while being errata, and less inherently > desirable than a ruling) eliminate the opportunity for Psyche & TT to interrupt > a master card (which is objectionable to me, and at least a couple of other > players, from a backstory perspective); it would clean up the wording on Psyche, > clearly identifying it as a combat card that is usable only in combat, and clear > up any perceived timing issues, and provide a consistent wording template. I am > unsure how this would change the resolution of any "S:CE and..." strikes. If the pertinent rule would be restored as before (any strikes doing something in addition to combat ends happens just *after* combat, "untapping" included) i think things would be sufficently clear. Let's hope for that.:-) Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome <snip>

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:ab9nms$gn0bs$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > I think that because of Telepathic Tracking, we could infer the existence of a > "combat is about to end" phase, where Psyche and TT can be played, allowing for > the combat/round to be restarted, without adding after-the-fact adjudications on > when Psyche is meant to be played. A rewording of Psyche using TT's phrasing > would be nice. When combat ends - however it ends - you can play "as combat is ending" cards. Psyche and Telepathic Tracking among them. So yes, there is such a thing, as the rules are currently interpreted. [snip errata suggestion] > I am > unsure how this would change the resolution of any "S:CE and..." strikes. > AFAICT, it would nullify "at the end of combat" stuff, but it would not nullify > "S:CE and untap, and the like". I am not sure whether this is desirable or not > (nor do I really care). Right. How "S:CE and untap" is handled, and whether that's different from "S:CE and opponent takes 1 damage after combat" is dependent solely on the ruling that the untap happens when the strike resolves, whereas the damage (or any other non-untap effects, I think) is delayed till after combat. Anything that was going to happen after combat is "forgotten" if a new combat is started or the current one is continued. The simplest way to "fix" this, if it needs fixing, might be to reverse the ruling that Rotschreck first ends combat, and then sends the vampire to torpor (ie in two steps). If it were in one step, it wouldn't be possible to Psyche or Track against Rotschreck. The errata you suggest would certainly also accomplish that, and it'd be more easily determined just from reading the cards in question. It seems to me like something that might be good to do if/when the cards are reprinted (in the Camarilla set or whatever). If they're not reprinted, the RT may not consider the situation to be important enough to issue errata... Josh still pressed for time

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abc1s8$gr57d$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... Thanks for the response. :) > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message > news:ab9nms$gn0bs$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > > > I think that because of Telepathic Tracking, we could infer the existence > > of a "combat is about to end" phase, where Psyche and TT can be played, > > When combat ends - however it ends - you can play "as combat > is ending" cards. Psyche and Telepathic Tracking among them. > So yes, there is such a thing, as the rules are currently interpreted. Yah. I could be wrong, but it doesn't appear to be explicitly stated anywhere. Which it doesn't necessarily need to be, but witness the confusion over Anaesthetic Touch/Disarm, etc. by good players (Naram, others). > [snip errata suggestion] > > > I am unsure how this would change the resolution of any "S:CE and..." > > strikes. AFAICT, it would nullify "at the end of combat" stuff, but it > > would not nullify "S:CE and untap, and the like". I am not sure > > whether this is desirable or not (nor do I really care). > > Right. Right, you don't care, or right, it wouldn't nullify that stuff? :) > How "S:CE and untap" is handled, and whether that's > different from "S:CE and opponent takes 1 damage after combat" > is dependent solely on the ruling that the untap happens when > the strike resolves, whereas the damage (or any other non-untap > effects, I think) is delayed till after combat. Anything that That's what I've gathered too. It makes sense...there is no prohibition on cards having to untap vampires at specific points during game play, but it is somewhat unusual, in that most "and then this happens" effects occur after the current phase (combat, whatever) have ended. > The simplest way to "fix" this, if it needs fixing, might be > to reverse the ruling that Rotschreck first ends combat, and > then sends the vampire to torpor (ie in two steps). If it > were in one step, it wouldn't be possible to Psyche or Track > against Rotschreck. True. I'm in agreement with your take on the card text not really necessitating two steps. And that whole minion card interrupting a master card kinda bothers me. > The errata you suggest would certainly also accomplish that, > and it'd be more easily determined just from reading the > cards in question. It seems to me like something that might > be good to do if/when the cards are reprinted (in the Camarilla > set or whatever). I hate having to suggest errata to that effect, as rulings are obviously cleaner (theoretically), but it'd be nice to see a cleaned-up Rotschreck and Psyche...it'd be even better than the present we got in Sabbat War's re-wording of Trap! Heh. > If they're not reprinted, the RT may not > consider the situation to be important enough to issue errata... Obviously. Still, I can hope. :) IMO, it'd be worthwhile, just because there has been so much debate on the timing, etc. of both of these cards over the years. Getting it all wrapped up once and for all would soothe at least a couple of nagging headaches, I imagine. Xian

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > Prior to this BBA could play a burning wrath, but as soon as the card > > played the BBA burned dur to not having any life left. > > > > However since the new ruling seems to make the ally act as a vampire > > till at least the damage resolution, the BBA should now be able to > > No. As stated many times, the new ruling doesn't make the ally act > as a vampire til any time. The new ruling says that the effect of > the card played as a vampire is handled as a vampire. > > > effectively play burning wrath since a vampire with zero blood is able > > to fight until hit with another point of damage to send them to torpor. > > > > Correct? and if not, how can you explain that in light of the current > > rulings. > > Not correct. The BBA pays his last life for the card. Then, separate > from the resolution of the play of the card, he finds himself to be > an ally with no life and is therefore burned. Ok. and that is different from a any other situation covered in combat how? You all ready pointed out that the cards strikes and effects are simultaneously applied. Your creating a step between the card strike being played and the resolution of that same strike which was already pointed out to be simultaneous. The only real issue is the ineffective strike no made by the opposing minion on the currently burning ally. Its not like this is important, but it is a issue created by the current rulings Raille

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:abcb9b$gn47q$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:abc1s8$gr57d$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > The simplest way to "fix" this, if it needs fixing, might be > > to reverse the ruling that Rotschreck first ends combat, and > > then sends the vampire to torpor (ie in two steps). If it > > were in one step, it wouldn't be possible to Psyche or Track > > against Rotschreck. > > True. I'm in agreement with your take on the card text not really necessitating > two steps. And that whole minion card interrupting a master card kinda bothers > me. > More importantly, ruling that the card takes various steps is directly at odds with other recent rulings, most particularly the ruling with Left For Dead. If you'll remember, LSJ ruled that Left For Dead ends combat and restores the ally to life at the same time. If card effects happened sequentially, with room for effects and interrupts in between them (which LSJ specifically ruled does *not* happen), then Blood Brother Ambush could be saved for multiple combats by using Left For Dead.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:V_kC8.1420$L76.26@rwcrnsc53... > More importantly, ruling that the card takes various steps is directly at odds > with other recent rulings, most particularly the ruling with Left For Dead. If Interesting point. > you'll remember, LSJ ruled that Left For Dead ends combat and restores the ally > to life at the same time. If card effects happened sequentially, with room for > effects and interrupts in between them (which LSJ specifically ruled does *not* > happen), then Blood Brother Ambush could be saved for multiple combats by using > Left For Dead. By ignoring the fact that BBA is an action modifier and Left for Dead is a M:OOT? :) Xian

Chris Berger wrote: > More importantly, ruling that the card takes various steps is directly at odds > with other recent rulings, most particularly the ruling with Left For Dead. If > you'll remember, LSJ ruled that Left For Dead ends combat and restores the ally > to life at the same time. If card effects happened sequentially, with room for > effects and interrupts in between them (which LSJ specifically ruled does *not* > happen), then Blood Brother Ambush could be saved for multiple combats by using > Left For Dead. Can't find the message that contains the LfD ruling you're remembering. (Just searched for "left dead life" on Google, and none of the results contained such a ruling.) If I've missed it, please proved a reference (google URL prefered). I did find a ruling to the contrary, however. The ally is not "restored to life" until after combat ends (sequentially). http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BC17E8E.33244AC2%40white-wolf.com The BBA ruling stems from the fact that the BBA isn't being burned in combat (as required by LfD). http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BBB7FA5.ABBC1D97%40white-wolf.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > Prior to this BBA could play a burning wrath, but as soon as the card > > > played the BBA burned dur to not having any life left. > > > > > > However since the new ruling seems to make the ally act as a vampire > > > till at least the damage resolution, the BBA should now be able to > > > > No. As stated many times, the new ruling doesn't make the ally act > > as a vampire til any time. The new ruling says that the effect of > > the card played as a vampire is handled as a vampire. > > > > > effectively play burning wrath since a vampire with zero blood is able > > > to fight until hit with another point of damage to send them to torpor. > > > > > > Correct? and if not, how can you explain that in light of the current > > > rulings. > > > > Not correct. The BBA pays his last life for the card. Then, separate > > from the resolution of the play of the card, he finds himself to be > > an ally with no life and is therefore burned. > > Ok. and that is different from a any other situation covered in combat > how? You all ready pointed out that the cards strikes and effects are > simultaneously applied. ? The cost of a strike card is paid when the card is played - well before the effect is resolved (which doesn't occur until strike resolution). > Your creating a step between the card strike being played and the > resolution of that same strike which was already pointed out to be > simultaneous. Very much not true. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:abcb9b$gn47q$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:abc1s8$gr57d$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > Thanks for the response. :) Welcome. :-) > > When combat ends - however it ends - you can play "as combat > > is ending" cards. Psyche and Telepathic Tracking among them. > > So yes, there is such a thing, as the rules are currently interpreted. > > Yah. I could be wrong, but it doesn't appear to be explicitly stated anywhere. > Which it doesn't necessarily need to be, but witness the confusion over > Anaesthetic Touch/Disarm, etc. by good players (Naram, others). Yeah. It'd be clearer if it were stated explicitly in the rulebook section on combat, but that section's pretty long already. :-) It "makes sense" logically in that, when combat is ending, you play "when combat is ending" cards (and so it can be left out of the rulebook, if you assume people can deduce this). But I do think it'd be better put into the rulebook. > > [snip errata suggestion] > > > > > I am unsure how this would change the resolution of any "S:CE and..." > > > strikes. AFAICT, it would nullify "at the end of combat" stuff, but it > > > would not nullify "S:CE and untap, and the like". I am not sure > > > whether this is desirable or not (nor do I really care). > > > > Right. > > Right, you don't care, or right, it wouldn't nullify that stuff? :) Right, it would nullify "after combat" (not exactly "at the end of combat") stuff but not "S:CE and untap". :-) I do care; I signed up to care. ;-) > > How "S:CE and untap" is handled, and whether that's > > different from "S:CE and opponent takes 1 damage after combat" > > is dependent solely on the ruling that the untap happens when > > the strike resolves, whereas the damage (or any other non-untap > > effects, I think) is delayed till after combat. Anything that > > That's what I've gathered too. It makes sense...there is no prohibition on > cards having to untap vampires at specific points during game play, but it is > somewhat unusual, in that most "and then this happens" effects occur after the > current phase (combat, whatever) have ended. Yeah. I think what happened here is, right now, most (if not all?) "S:CE and something other than untap" effects are written to be "after combat". (Catatonic Fear, explicitly; Oubliette, explicitly; Form of Mist and similar, it *has* to be after combat because you can't continue an action *during* combat.) All "S:CE and untap" effects aren't (and have never been) written to be "after" combat, so they have now been ruled to be "when the strike resolves" so that they won't (suddenly) be countered by Psyche and such. > > The simplest way to "fix" this, if it needs fixing, might be > > to reverse the ruling that Rotschreck first ends combat, and > > then sends the vampire to torpor (ie in two steps). If it > > were in one step, it wouldn't be possible to Psyche or Track > > against Rotschreck. > > True. I'm in agreement with your take on the card text not really necessitating > two steps. And that whole minion card interrupting a master card kinda bothers > me. As LSJ has now pointed out, if Rotschreck ended combat and sent the vampire to torpor at the same time (or just "sent the vampire to torpor" thereby ending combat) you'd be able to Amaranth after Rotschreck, which is probably more bad (from a "balance" point of view) than being able to Psyche out of Rotschreck. :-) So I guess I'm probably done complaining about this. [more stuff I agree with snipped] Josh got to get back to work, again

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<abdvfr$h8tu9$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message > news:abcb9b$gn47q$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... [snip] > Yeah. It'd be clearer if it were stated explicitly in the > rulebook section on combat, but that section's pretty long > already. :-) A few more words never hurt anyone. I think. > > somewhat unusual, in that most "and then this happens" effects occur after > > the current phase (combat, whatever) have ended. > > Yeah. I think what happened here is, right now, most (if not > all?) "S:CE and something other than untap" effects are written > to be "after combat". (Catatonic Fear, explicitly; Oubliette, Exactly. The only S:CE effects in the original set were: Majesty (S:CE and untap) Earth Meld (S:CE and untap) Form of Mist (S:CE and continue) I think we can conclude that there was never any inkling that there needed to be a separation (of strike and effect...kind of like church and state, but different), as the S:CE either untapped the vampire, or left the vampire tapped, but continuing the action. And then came later sets which introduced new effects, and brought up all these questions, what with their sloppy wording (not on the S:CE cards AFAIK, but on everything else...). Man, I wish S:CE had been Strike: this round of combat ends. :) > All "S:CE and untap" effects aren't (and have never been) written > to be "after" combat, so they have now been ruled to be "when > the strike resolves" so that they won't (suddenly) be countered > by Psyche and such. So mote it be. ;) > As LSJ has now pointed out, if Rotschreck ended combat and > sent the vampire to torpor at the same time (or just "sent Yeah, saw that (at home, before I went to work), but was waiting for it to show up on google to respond. Shoot. I hate it when he points out Really Important (tm) things like that. :) > the vampire to torpor" thereby ending combat) you'd be able > to Amaranth after Rotschreck, which is probably more bad > (from a "balance" point of view) than being able to Psyche > out of Rotschreck. :-) So I guess I'm probably done > complaining about this. Well, I don't think any of this was really "complaining", and I suspect that you'd get less outcry if Rotschreck could be interrupted by Amaranth, because it's more coherent from a backstory angle. Diablerize a vampire on its way to torpor, sure, why not? But yeah, it probably is kind of troublesome as far as balance goes. On the plus side, that would make Dr. John Casey my new favorite vampire. Heck, I'd build a deck around him. Dr. John MotS's the Soul Gem. Put an Auspex skill card on him. Intercept/Rotschreck/Amaranth/burn, get out the next Dr. John. Funny. > got to get back to work, again You and this "work". Heh. Xian heading to the Source tonight, for entertainment

LSJ wrote: > The cost of a strike card is paid when the card is played - well before > the effect is resolved (which doesn't occur until strike resolution). > > > Your creating a step between the card strike being played and the > > resolution of that same strike which was already pointed out to be > > simultaneous. > > Very much not true. > Understood, it just seems that way. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > Since Torpor has already been pointed out to be special to vampires, > > perhaps the simple clause/ruling, that a ally in torpor simply returns > > the active region at the completion of the action. > > If such errata were needed, it would be worded as the ally burns rather > than the ally becomes/remains ready, as previously indicated. That would be accceptable to me and a lot of other people. Might not please the ultrafringe, but you can't please everyone. > But, as previously indicated, such errata would only be necessary to > recitfy things for a WoD backstory perspective - it isn't needed for > play balance or uniformity or any of the "normal" reasons for errata. > Well at least VTES has play balance. Its part of the reason I play. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > What about when a allies attempts to use some generic combat card > > requiring a vampire and the opposing minion counters with Rotschreck? > > > > I'd guess this too will send that ally to torpor, correct? > > No. Rotschreck cannot be played on allies (card text). > And there's nothing (no effect or rule) which currently exists to > allow Rotscrheck to be played as if the target ally were a vampire. > I caught that. I'm only about 3 days behind in reading the newsgroup now! Let me know the next time you plan on releasing rulings. I'll make sure I don't go out of town that week! Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] and don't forget the immediate 1 pool upkeep and continued 1 pool drain every turn to have the herald work for you. He's NOT Cheap! Raille

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CDA6425...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > More importantly, ruling that the card takes various steps is directly at odds > > with other recent rulings, most particularly the ruling with Left For Dead. If > > you'll remember, LSJ ruled that Left For Dead ends combat and restores the ally > > to life at the same time. If card effects happened sequentially, with room for > > effects and interrupts in between them (which LSJ specifically ruled does *not* > > happen), then Blood Brother Ambush could be saved for multiple combats by using > > Left For Dead. > > Can't find the message that contains the LfD ruling you're remembering. > (Just searched for "left dead life" on Google, and none of the results > contained such a ruling.) If I've missed it, please proved a reference > (google URL prefered). > > I did find a ruling to the contrary, however. > > The ally is not "restored to life" until after combat ends (sequentially). > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BC17E8E.33244AC2%40white-wolf.com > > The BBA ruling stems from the fact that the BBA isn't being burned in > combat (as required by LfD). > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BBB7FA5.ABBC1D97%40white-wolf.com > No, the ruling stated that if the BBA *was* burned in combat, it could not be kept in play with a Left for Dead. If one followed sequential application of card text, then the ally burns, combat ends, ally returns to play. However, by your ruling, the ally burns, then combat is ended and the ally is returned to play, then the ally is burned because combat ends. If interrupts are allowed, then the BBA would burn itself *before* Left for Dead brings them back to play, as combat ends before the ally is brought back into play.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, it says that if the BBA was burned in combat, it could be saved by Left for Dead. It also says that if BBA is burned as a result of his own card text (as a result of combat ending), he cannot be saved. Still waiting for the reference to the article you claim I wrote to the contrary. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CE0F8F8...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] The thread was called "Here's the real question! BBA and Left for Dead". I'm having problems posting the link to it, and hopefully Outlook didn't just convert my message to HTML when I cut & pasted... You say below that Left for Dead will end combat and save the Blood Brother Ambush, after which the Blood Brother Ambush will burn itself by it's own text. If you allow effects to interrupt the play of cards (like Psyche! in the middle of a Rotschreck, or in this case, Blood Brother Ambush reacting in the middle of the LfD), then the Ambush would not ever see the "end combat" effect, because it is burned at that point in time. As I said before. I'm not trying to argue the BBA/LfD ruling again (because like all these other rulings that have everyone in an uproar, it's so corner-case as to not really matter), but the consistency between this ruling and that one. ---------------------------------- Chris Berger wrote: > Like you said, there is no timing stack. The ally dosn't know that > combat ended, because it ended while the ally was burned. > > If the ally could know that combat was ending, your sequence of events > should look like this... > > Ally is burned. > Combat ends / ally is burned by its own text > Left for Dead is played > Ally is not burned, combat is confirmed as not restarting or > continuing > (*) > > If there is no timing stack, then why are you buffering the combat > ends effect all the way to the end. By (*) combat is long over. > There is no second combat ends step here to trigger the BBA's burn > clause. BBA only burns when combat ends, not 3 steps after combat > ends, and not after combat ends and all additional effects have been > dealt with. 1) BBA suffers burning effect meaning combat would end. 2) In combat, Left For Dead is played, ending combat and saving BBA. 3) BBA is burned by its own card text. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > No, it says that if the BBA was burned in combat, it could be saved by > > Left for Dead. It also says that if BBA is burned as a result of his own > > card text (as a result of combat ending), he cannot be saved. > > > > Still waiting for the reference to the article you claim I wrote to the > > contrary. > > > > The thread was called "Here's the real question! BBA and Left for Dead". I'm > having problems posting the link to it, and hopefully Outlook didn't just > convert my message to HTML when I cut & pasted... > > You say below that Left for Dead will end combat and save the Blood Brother > Ambush, after which the Blood Brother Ambush will burn itself by it's own text. Yes. It burns when combat ends (card text). The LfD ended combat and saved BBA. Then BBA's card text burns it (he burns at the end of combat). > If you allow effects to interrupt the play of cards (like Psyche! in the middle > of a Rotschreck, or in this case, Blood Brother Ambush reacting in the middle > of the LfD), then the Ambush would not ever see the "end combat" effect, > because it is burned at that point in time. As I said before. I'm not trying > to argue the BBA/LfD ruling again (because like all these other rulings that > have everyone in an uproar, it's so corner-case as to not really matter), but > the consistency between this ruling and that one. BBA "sees" the end of combat (or rather, the end of combat "sees" the BBA). BBA cannot be in combat and then, later, not be in combat without combat ending. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CE3EDD4...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > If you allow effects to interrupt the play of cards (like Psyche! in the middle > > of a Rotschreck, or in this case, Blood Brother Ambush reacting in the middle > > of the LfD), then the Ambush would not ever see the "end combat" effect, > > because it is burned at that point in time. As I said before. I'm not trying > > to argue the BBA/LfD ruling again (because like all these other rulings that > > have everyone in an uproar, it's so corner-case as to not really matter), but > > the consistency between this ruling and that one. > > BBA "sees" the end of combat (or rather, the end of combat "sees" the BBA). BBA > cannot be in combat and then, later, not be in combat without combat ending. > The "end of combat" can't see something that isn't in play. If you allow interrupts, the BBA is not in play when combat ends. Explain how an ally that is not in play can be burned? If you apply the effects sequentially, with room for interrupts, this is, again, the sequence that would be followed: 1) BBA burns. 2) Left for Dead is play. 3) Left for Dead ends combat. BBA would burn here. Either it isn't burned because it isn't in play, or else it's burned and goes to the ash heap "again". 4) Left for Dead returns BBA to play. The way that you explained it was that LfD ends combat and returns the ally to play as a single effect, after which the BBA is burned. I didn't understand exactly why that would occur, but at the very least, that implies that card effects are indivisible. By the same token, Rotschreck would end combat and send one vampire to torpor. At that point, Psyche! could not be played, as both vampires are not ready. If you allow interruption by cards played in *this* case, then there's obviously some timing point in between effects on a card...

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CE3EDD4...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > If you allow effects to interrupt the play of cards (like Psyche! in the > middle > > > of a Rotschreck, or in this case, Blood Brother Ambush reacting in the > middle > > > of the LfD), then the Ambush would not ever see the "end combat" effect, > > > because it is burned at that point in time. As I said before. I'm not > trying > > > to argue the BBA/LfD ruling again (because like all these other rulings > that > > > have everyone in an uproar, it's so corner-case as to not really matter), > but > > > the consistency between this ruling and that one. > > > > BBA "sees" the end of combat (or rather, the end of combat "sees" the BBA). > BBA > > cannot be in combat and then, later, not be in combat without combat ending. > > > The "end of combat" can't see something that isn't in play. If you allow > interrupts, the BBA is not in play when combat ends. Explain how an ally that > is not in play can be burned? He never leaves play. For instance, a War Ghoul with a Flamethrower who is saved by a LfD still has the FT (this would not be true if the WG had left play). > If you apply the effects sequentially, with room for interrupts, this is, > again, the sequence that would be followed: > > 1) BBA burns. > 2) Left for Dead is play. > 3) Left for Dead ends combat. BBA would burn here. Either it isn't burned > because it isn't in play, or else it's burned and goes to the ash heap "again". > 4) Left for Dead returns BBA to play. > > The way that you explained it was that LfD ends combat and returns the ally to > play as a single effect, after which the BBA is burned. I didn't understand > exactly why that would occur, but at the very least, that implies that card > effects are indivisible. By the same token, Rotschreck would end combat and > send one vampire to torpor. At that point, Psyche! could not be played, as > both vampires are not ready. If you allow interruption by cards played in > *this* case, then there's obviously some timing point in between effects on a > card... Psyche! cannot be played on the BBA in question since the BBA is not ready when combat is ending. If something like Amaranth existed to target allies, then that something could be used on a LfD-saved ally (thwarting LfD by re-burning the ally, just as BBA's card text re-burns the ally). If you need to think about it that way, BBA's "burn me" clause "interrupts" LfD at the same timing window that Psyche! would interrupt Rotschreck. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CE4EC79...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > >> > If you need to think about it that way, BBA's "burn me" clause "interrupts" > LfD at the same timing window that Psyche! would interrupt Rotschreck. > Okay, but what about the part on LfD that says "that ally is not burned" *after* combat ends... that's right, *after* combat ends. Read the card if you don't believe me.

[ quoted text not captured ] OK. BBA is to be burned. LfD is played. LfD ends combat. BBA card text interrupts LfD and burns BBA. As I said (and you just quoted). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CE5026B...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3CE4EC79...@white-wolf.com... > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > If you need to think about it that way, BBA's "burn me" clause "interrupts" > > > LfD at the same timing window that Psyche! would interrupt Rotschreck. > > > > > Okay, but what about the part on LfD that says "that ally is not burned" > > *after* combat ends... that's right, *after* combat ends. Read the card if > > you don't believe me. > > OK. > BBA is to be burned. LfD is played. LfD ends combat. BBA card text > interrupts LfD and burns BBA. As I said (and you just quoted). > Yes, fine, but BBA being burned doesn't stop the rest of LfD's effect, like Psyche! would if played in the middle of a Rotschreck. LfD *expects* the BBA to be burned. So nothing has changed from before. Now, at this point, after BBA interrupts and burns iteslf, LfD continues it's effect and says that BBA is not burned. I just don't understand your logic here... I *thought* I understood you when you seemed to be saying that card play was atomic.

Chris Berger wrote: > Yes, fine, but BBA being burned doesn't stop the rest of LfD's effect, like > Psyche! would if played in the middle of a Rotschreck. LfD *expects* the BBA > to be burned. So nothing has changed from before. Now, at this point, after > BBA interrupts and burns iteslf, LfD continues it's effect and says that BBA is > not burned. I just don't understand your logic here... I *thought* I > understood you when you seemed to be saying that card play was atomic. Rotschreck is interrupted by Psyche! (and the torpor effect is lost). LfD is interrupted by BBA card text (and the save effect is lost). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CE68271...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > Yes, fine, but BBA being burned doesn't stop the rest of LfD's effect, like > > Psyche! would if played in the middle of a Rotschreck. LfD *expects* the BBA > > to be burned. So nothing has changed from before. Now, at this point, after > > BBA interrupts and burns iteslf, LfD continues it's effect and says that BBA is > > not burned. I just don't understand your logic here... I *thought* I > > understood you when you seemed to be saying that card play was atomic. > > Rotschreck is interrupted by Psyche! (and the torpor effect is lost). > LfD is interrupted by BBA card text (and the save effect is lost). > So, apparently you can interrupt any multi-effect card, causing the rest of the text to be lost? Certainly for cards that have a certain trigger (i.e. if it's play at end of combat and combat happens in the middle of a card play), but what about when you *can* play a card at a particular time, but could also play it at other times. How about Deflection... it says "tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah..." blah, blah, blah. How about I'll play a Threats after he taps his reacting vampire, thus negating the rest of the card? I guess you can effectively counter any reaction or action modifier by playing another during the resolution of the first. Cool... counterspell Jyhad. I can't wait to tell everybody around here.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:qVvF8.49843$UV4.8267@rwcrnsc54... > > {a bunch of gibberish about interrupts} > My point, which kind of got lost, is that there's no reason that an effect happening during the play of another card should cause the rest of the effects to be "lost". There is no rule that says if something happens while a card is resolving, the rest of the effect is cancelled. There isn't even a rule that says so in the case of cards played, much less "effects occurring". The only reason that Psyche! will cancel the rest of Rotschreck (and the rest of Left for Dead, incidentally... Psyche! will cancel the ally coming back to life), is that there has been a ruling stating that if an effect ends combat and does something else, it will be lost if combat is continued or restarted. This is not the case with LfD/BBA. Combat is not being restarted, so the rest of the effect should still occur.

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > Yes, fine, but BBA being burned doesn't stop the rest of LfD's effect, like > > Psyche! would if played in the middle of a Rotschreck. LfD *expects* the BBA > > to be burned. So nothing has changed from before. Now, at this point, after > > BBA interrupts and burns iteslf, LfD continues it's effect and says that BBA is > > not burned. I just don't understand your logic here... I *thought* I > > understood you when you seemed to be saying that card play was atomic. > > Rotschreck is interrupted by Psyche! (and the torpor effect is lost). > LfD is interrupted by BBA card text (and the save effect is lost). Can the LfD be played in responce to the BBA's self burning Clause to "intrupt" that effect, leaving the BBA in play? Raille

Raille wrote: > Can the LfD be played in responce to the BBA's self burning Clause to > "intrupt" that effect, leaving the BBA in play? No. LfD requires that the ally be burned in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:IDwF8.56762$Po6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > > The only reason that Psyche! will cancel the rest of Rotschreck (and the rest > of Left for Dead, incidentally... Psyche! will cancel the ally coming back to > life), is that there has been a ruling stating that if an effect ends combat > and does something else, it will be lost if combat is continued or restarted. > This is not the case with LfD/BBA. Combat is not being restarted, so the rest > of the effect should still occur. > Was wondering if there was any response to this... LSJ?

[ quoted text not captured ] Rewording/summarizing previous responses: 1) BBA is burned in combat 2) LfD is played. 3) Combat Ends. 4) BBA card text burns him. 5) LfD's target is no longer around. See also stealing a grenade that is used at First Strike or superior Horrid Reality's attempt to return a weapon to the library if that weapon got burned. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > > news:IDwF8.56762$Po6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > > > > > > The only reason that Psyche! will cancel the rest of Rotschreck (and the rest > > > of Left for Dead, incidentally... Psyche! will cancel the ally coming back > > to > > > life), is that there has been a ruling stating that if an effect ends combat > > > and does something else, it will be lost if combat is continued or restarted. > > > This is not the case with LfD/BBA. Combat is not being restarted, so the > > rest > > > of the effect should still occur. > > > > > Was wondering if there was any response to this... LSJ? > > Rewording/summarizing previous responses: > > 1) BBA is burned in combat > 2) LfD is played. > 3) Combat Ends. > 4) BBA card text burns him. > 5) LfD's target is no longer around. > > See also stealing a grenade that is used at First Strike or > superior Horrid Reality's attempt to return a weapon to the library > if that weapon got burned. One more thing: If the above is still not sufficient for you, treat the whole thing as errata: BBA card text: burn BBA any time he is not in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CECEB31...@white-wolf.com... > > 1) BBA is burned in combat > 2) LfD is played. > 3) Combat Ends. > 4) BBA card text burns him. > 5) LfD's target is no longer around. > BBA already wasn't around. So, basically, what you're saying is that everything you said above is BS? That is, about an effect interrupting LfD and that's why it wouldn't work? Can *you* even understand the rulings you make? Because frankly, I'm stumped.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CECEB31...@white-wolf.com... > > > > 1) BBA is burned in combat > > 2) LfD is played. > > 3) Combat Ends. > > 4) BBA card text burns him. > > 5) LfD's target is no longer around. > > > BBA already wasn't around. > > So, basically, what you're saying is that everything you said above is BS? No. Since you didn't like the first explanations, I tried an alternative approach. > That is, about an effect interrupting LfD and that's why it wouldn't work? Can > *you* even understand the rulings you make? Because frankly, I'm stumped. For those of you still stumped: It either interrupts it or it doesn't. Either way, BBA burns. See previous messages for details. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Rotschreck is interrupted by Psyche! (and the torpor effect is lost). > > LfD is interrupted by BBA card text (and the save effect is lost). Chris Berger wrote: > So, apparently you can interrupt any multi-effect card, causing the rest of the > text to be lost? Certainly for cards that have a certain trigger (i.e. if it's > play at end of combat and combat happens in the middle of a card play), but > what about when you *can* play a card at a particular time, but could also play > it at other times. How about Deflection... it says "tap this reacting > vampire. Choose another Methuselah..." blah, blah, blah. How about I'll play > a Threats after he taps his reacting vampire, thus negating the rest of the > card? I guess you can effectively counter any reaction or action modifier by > playing another during the resolution of the first. Cool... counterspell > Jyhad. I can't wait to tell everybody around here. I'm actually very interested to hear LSJ's response to the above. Setting multi effect cards so that they have a window for interruption (which is what the new Psyche!/Rotz ruling did) opens up this kind of possiblity, especially with regards to interpretation and is why errata/rulings like that set bad precedent. Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

Sorrow wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Rotschreck is interrupted by Psyche! (and the torpor effect is lost). > > > LfD is interrupted by BBA card text (and the save effect is lost). > > Chris Berger wrote: > > So, apparently you can interrupt any multi-effect card, causing the rest of the > > text to be lost? Certainly for cards that have a certain trigger (i.e. if it's > > play at end of combat and combat happens in the middle of a card play), but > > what about when you *can* play a card at a particular time, but could also play > > it at other times. How about Deflection... it says "tap this reacting > > vampire. Choose another Methuselah..." blah, blah, blah. How about I'll play > > a Threats after he taps his reacting vampire, thus negating the rest of the > > card? I guess you can effectively counter any reaction or action modifier by > > playing another during the resolution of the first. Cool... counterspell > > Jyhad. I can't wait to tell everybody around here. > > I'm actually very interested to hear LSJ's response to the above. > Setting multi effect cards so that they have a window for interruption (which is > what the new Psyche!/Rotz ruling did) opens up this kind of possiblity, especially > with regards to interpretation and is why errata/rulings like that set bad precedent. Things that are playable at the end of combat can be played at the end of combat. E.g., Psyche! Please explain the logic that gets form there to "counterspell jyhad" and I'll try to point out the flaw(s) in that logic. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D10DA67...@white-wolf.com... > Sorrow wrote: > > > Things that are playable at the end of combat can be played at > the end of combat. E.g., Psyche! > > Please explain the logic that gets form there to "counterspell jyhad" > and I'll try to point out the flaw(s) in that logic. > If you are allowed to play one effect while another is resolving (and this wasn't explicitly ruled to be a new allowance, only for cards that are played at the end of combat, but the ruling about playing Psyche! during Rotschreck seemed to *assume* that you could interrupt effects with other effects), then why not play a Bonding in between the untap effect of 2nd Tradition and the intercept effect of it? Or how about cards that say, "choose a vampire" and then do something to that vampire. Why not play an effect after the vampire is chosen, but nothing has happened to him? Now, granted, that usually wouldn't mean anything. The ruling said that effects that end combat and do something else will lose the "something else" if combat is restarted. They said nothing about interrupting an effect and causing all other effects to be lost. So up to here, the point would be moot. However, in your continually inarticulate explanation of the LfD/BBA ruling, you implied that any effect that interrupted currently resolving effects would cause additional effects to be lost (don't ask me to clarify that... it doesn't seem to make much sense, but you said it, not me). If this is the case, then you could "counterspell" any multi-effect card by playing effects in the middle of it. Playing a bleed modifier after 2nd Tradition has untapped you but before you have gained the intercept (or after the intercept but before the untap, depending on what order it goes in), would then cancel the rest of the card. Certainly that can't be the case. We all know that's not the way the game works, and I assume you're not trying to change it to be like that, but it seems to be what you have implied. The rulings cited only make sense in such a context.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3D10DA67...@white-wolf.com... > > Sorrow wrote: > > > > > Things that are playable at the end of combat can be played at > > the end of combat. E.g., Psyche! > > > > Please explain the logic that gets form there to "counterspell jyhad" > > and I'll try to point out the flaw(s) in that logic. > > > If you are allowed to play one effect while another is resolving (and this > wasn't explicitly ruled to be a new allowance, only for cards that are played > at the end of combat, but the ruling about playing Psyche! during Rotschreck > seemed to *assume* that you could interrupt effects with other effects), then > why not play a Bonding in between the untap effect of 2nd Tradition and the > intercept effect of it? Or how about cards that say, "choose a vampire" and > then do something to that vampire. Why not play an effect after the vampire is > chosen, but nothing has happened to him? OK. So you've pointed out the flawed assumption already. Bonding isn't a "when a minion untaps" effect. So it doesn't get to interrupt the 2nd Trad. > Now, granted, that usually wouldn't mean anything. The ruling said that > effects that end combat and do something else will lose the "something else" if > combat is restarted. They said nothing about interrupting an effect and > causing all other effects to be lost. So up to here, the point would be moot. > However, in your continually inarticulate explanation of the LfD/BBA ruling, > you implied that any effect that interrupted currently resolving effects would > cause additional effects to be lost (don't ask me to clarify that... it > doesn't seem to make much sense, but you said it, not me). If this is the Errata for you: BBA is burned any time he is not in combat (this is a continuous effect - if something saves him he'll still burn in the next instant). > case, then you could "counterspell" any multi-effect card by playing effects in > the middle of it. Playing a bleed modifier after 2nd Tradition has untapped > you but before you have gained the intercept (or after the intercept but before > the untap, depending on what order it goes in), would then cancel the rest of > the card. Based on those non-official assumptions, possibly. Officially, you can't play the bleed modifier between the play of the 2nd trad and the 2nd trad's effect. The only things that can be played there are "as a card is played" effects (e.g. Direct Intervention). > Certainly that can't be the case. We all know that's not the way the game > works, and I assume you're not trying to change it to be like that, but it > seems to be what you have implied. The rulings cited only make sense in such a > context. [ quoted text not captured ]