I was playing my Talbot's chainsaw deck the other day when I ran into a
dispute. I did as talbots said and attacked a minion, Talbot's was on sarah
cobler (expert thalmaturgy). I wanted to use theft as a strike instead of
the chainsaw because i couldn't really afford to use the chantry
to pull her out of toropor. My victim said that if i used part of the card,
I must use all of the card. I easily agree in any case where it would say
somthing like Strike: 1R and opt. Manuver. If you use the manuver you must
use the 1R. But Talbot's has a lot of stuff on it and it is not as cut and
dry. Does this mean i can't even use a dodge? My question is:
With Talbot's must you strike with talbots?
One more question:
Here is the situation:
In combat,close range,he strikes hands,I strike minor theft,we both play taste.
I felt he could not play taste yet I could. I feel very confident in this
opinion, but i could not produce the rule to prove it to him.
Thanks,
Dave
In article <20MAR199...@rosie.uh.edu>,
Stafford, David A <das7...@rosie.uh.edu> wrote:
>I was playing my Talbot's chainsaw deck the other day when I ran into a
>dispute. I did as talbots said and attacked a minion, Talbot's was on sarah
>cobler (expert thalmaturgy). I wanted to use theft as a strike instead of
>the chainsaw because i couldn't really afford to use the chantry
>to pull her out of toropor. My victim said that if i used part of the card,
>I must use all of the card. I easily agree in any case where it would say
>somthing like Strike: 1R and opt. Manuver. If you use the manuver you must
>use the 1R. But Talbot's has a lot of stuff on it and it is not as cut and
>dry. Does this mean i can't even use a dodge? My question is:
>With Talbot's must you strike with talbots?
No. The strike is optional, the Press is optional, and the prevention of damage
is optional. Even the attack has been ruled to be optional, though it
is worded otherwise. They are all independent (i.e., you could use the
strike even if the combat was a result of you blocking someone else's
action).
>One more question:
>Here is the situation:
>In combat,close range,he strikes hands,I strike minor theft,we both play taste.
>I felt he could not play taste yet I could. I feel very confident in this
>opinion, but i could not produce the rule to prove it to him.
You can both play taste, but taste won't count blood lost to stealing -
it only counts blood burnt to heal damage (errata). So the vampire who
played theft of vitae can play taste, but will gain nothing for it.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text
>One more question:
>Here is the situation:
>In combat,close range,he strikes hands,I strike minor
theft,we both play taste.
>I felt he could not play taste yet I could. I feel very
confident in this
>opinion, but i could not produce the rule to prove it to
him.
>Dave
So, in the round, both the vampires have lost a blood and
thus both may play a taste to regain that one blood lost -
though why one would play such a good card in this situation
is, I should think, the real question!!!
..its a rhetorical question by the way...
"I'll just say my secret magic word..."