Rotschreck Poll

How many of you players out there agree with Tom's ruling on Rotschreck and how many of you think it should be played the way it was written? Inquiring minds want to know. Gary

[ quoted text not captured ] My group and I have been playing it the way it's written on the card since the beginning... -Paul-Andre

>IMHO, I think it should be played on the receiver of aggravated damage, >because that is how it has been ruled before. Also, that is how Rot >happens in Vampire:The Masquerade, which is the inspiration and blue >print for Jyhad, per Richard Garfield. Okay, rulings are rulings. I can't argue with that. However, if you are going to be consistent with Vampire the Masquerade, neither view of Rotschreck is right. First off, aggravated damage (or the prospect of same) does not cause rotschreck -- fire and sunlight does. Yes, fire causes aggro damage, but vampires don't go berserk just because they saw some Gangrel sprout fingernails. Second, rotschreck does not cause vampires to go to torpor. It just causes them to panic uncontrollably and flee in terror. -- Simeon ---------------------------- simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu

Gary Schwartz (schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu) wrote: : How many of you players out there agree with : Tom's ruling on Rotschreck and how many : of you think it should be played the way : it was written? I am in total agreement with Tom, for the record. I know what the card says, and as a trained English teacher can parse the sentence to understand what is written there; however, I was always of the opinion that the card was put in as a defence to agg. damage. Simply put, it makes no sense to me (as a card in the game) played the way it is written. Case: Opponent uses Gilbert Duane to call a vote, and I use Anneke to stop it as it would be harmful to me. Gilbert whips out the concealed Flamethrower and is about to toast my butt. Eeep! Using Tom's ruling, I may now use the Rot. as a defence - instead of Anneke going to torpor (say she was at full) she is instead safe and combat ends with Gilbert cowering in fear in his own torpor. Case: Same scenario, but now Anneke is trying to bleed, and Gilbert blocks, and pulls out that same flamethrower. But wait! Instead of sending me to Torpor, he can instead waste a master phase and use Rotschreck to... send me to Torpor! Makes sense to me... Besides that, the ruling by Tom is not a new one... he has insisted (despite two printings of errata in Duellist to the contrary) that this is the way it was supposed to work all along. Many people here have simply given up on it as the ruling seems to be too... flexible... but Tom was not creating something new out of whole cloth with this recent re-iteration; merely reminding people of the last-known Official Ruling. Shane H.W. Travis | Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for tra...@duke.usask.ca | thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Hebrews 13:2

In article <3v8o8b$3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes: >How many of you players out there agree with >Tom's ruling on Rotschreck and how many >of you think it should be played the way >it was written? I had always assumed that Rotschreck is played on the vampire _delivering_ or attempting to deliver aggro damage. It wasn't until I read this newsgroup that any other possibility even occured to me. In game play, I have found that Rotschreck is a reasonable check/balance against aggravated damage decks, especially decks without Celerity or Fortitude. And with Sudden Reversal, your Gangrel deck has a reasonable check against Rotschreck. SUMMARY: I vote *played on delivering vampire*. -- Simeon ---------------------------- simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : Opponent uses Gilbert Duane to call a vote, and I use Anneke to stop it as : it would be harmful to me. Gilbert whips out the concealed Flamethrower : and is about to toast my butt. Eeep! Using Tom's ruling, I may now use the : Rot. as a defence - instead of Anneke going to torpor (say she was at : full) she is instead safe and combat ends with Gilbert cowering in fear in : his own torpor. : Same scenario, but now Anneke is trying to bleed, and Gilbert blocks, and : pulls out that same flamethrower. But wait! Instead of sending me to : Torpor, he can instead waste a master phase and use Rotschreck to... send : me to Torpor! Makes sense to me... Actually, your first scenario will never happen. For Duane to call a vote, it must be your turn, right? And the last I heard, you could not play out-of-turn masters on your own turn. (Or has that ruling changed?) The way things flip-flop around here, who knows...) I think great deal of the problem is that almost everything in the game is based on V:TM so people expect things to work like thatt game. In the vast majority of cases, they do. The problem is that Rotschreck works NOTHING like it does in the game. In my opinion, this card should have worked like a Strike:Combat Ends but only against aggravated damage. I can not figure for the life of me how, if I pull out a flamethrower, have my hand on the trigger, and plan to shoot it at you, MY fear of fire will kick in. I would think that you would be just a bit more fearful than I would... But the card is darn near useless if it works against the victim and way too powerful if used against the person who inflicts the damage, so as far as the vote goes... I say just admit the card is a bust, and don't play with it. :-) Ok, I guess I have to vote that it should affect the person inflicting the damage. Terry Wright | "Diplomacy is the art of letting Tww...@cs.usask.ca | someone else have your way." Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | - Danielle Vare Canada

We play the card the way it is written. For all of those who think that it doesn't make sense to play this way: Rotschreck = fear of aggravated damage. Why would a vampire using agg. dam. be afraid of hurting him/her self? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | <Ah, the CHAOTIC FURY of a distant voice, Michael Bist | "No Mr. Policeman, I didn't run over your sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu | donut on purpose" :-p> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>if you are >going to be consistent with Vampire the Masquerade, neither view of >Rotschreck is right. First off, aggravated damage (or the prospect of >same) does not cause rotschreck -- fire and sunlight does. I know how much posts about the RPG are frowned upon, but... Pretty much any dangerous surprise can cause a vampire's bestial nature take over and cause it to run in terror. Normal damage simply cannot kill a vampire, and rarely does more than knock it out for a while. Any form of aggravated damage can kill a vampire as easily as a human, so vampires fear all aggravated damage to some extent. Generally, if it's something that particular vampire would fear, the GM may ask you to roll your courage, so a young vampire who didn't realize guns are harmless might flee in terror from one. Of course, they especially fear fire and sunlight. I've had a character once who was attempting to revive an "unconscious" vampire. She woke up sooner than I thought, was extremely hungry, and tried to take a chomp out of "T-Bird." He did a Scooby-Doo and hid in the rafters (he had superior celerity.) >Second, rotschreck does not cause vampires to go to torpor. It just >causes them to panic uncontrollably and flee in terror. I had to think about this one, too. First off, aggravated damage, in the RPG, can never, ever send you to torpor. If you take enough agg. damage to "kill" you (which is 1 point in the CCG,) you are destroyed. Several time vampires in the campaign I was in were involved in nasty explosions. They usually run away at top speed (which is about 70 mph, for some) for several minutes and it takes a day or two to find them and help them get themselves back together (sometimes literally.) I think that's what the "torpor+" effect of Rscreck is supposed to represent. They are effectively helpless and out of things for a while. The 2 blood cost? Can't justify that, but it's a card game...

>Same scenario, but now Anneke is trying to bleed, and Gilbert blocks, and >pulls out that same flamethrower. But wait! Instead of sending me to >Torpor, he can instead waste a master phase and use Rotschreck to... send >me to Torpor! Makes sense to me... Here's an example of using Rotschreck "offensively" (as part of an offensive strategy that uses agg. damage): Crusher is wearing a flak jacket and pounding you with his undeadly strong fists of death (6 points?) You announce stike with fist for 1, and as per rulings read here, play Wolf's Claws and Rotschreck as the strike is announced. Playing that card has negated Crusher's flak jacket and fortitude cards he may have had, tapped him for 1 extra turn, and saved you from taking 6 points of damage. Played as written, it's useful for Gangrel who are facing a combat deck designed to beat them, so is a counter-counter card, I guess. Question: has it really been ruled that you can pop your claws and play Rotschreck from long range? I was under the impression that you don't even get to say "using hands for 1, which won't hit" at long range. You're stuck with no strike at all.

e Code Control (tww...@cs.usask.ca) wrote: : Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : : Opponent uses Gilbert Duane to call a vote, and I use Anneke to stop it as : : it would be harmful to me. Gilbert whips out the concealed Flamethrower : : and is about to toast my butt. Eeep! Using Tom's ruling, I may now use the : : Rot. as a defence - instead of Anneke going to torpor (say she was at : : full) she is instead safe and combat ends with Gilbert cowering in fear in : : his own torpor. : Actually, your first scenario will never happen. For Duane to call : a vote, it must be your turn, right? And the last I heard, you could : not play out-of-turn masters on your own turn. (Or has that ruling changed?) : The way things flip-flop around here, who knows...) The first scenario is fine, and no, the ruling on OOTM has not changed. Duane is calling the vote, so it is Duane's turn. Anneke is the one on the wrong end of the flamethrower - the one subject to Aggravated damage. Using the Rotschreck for _defensive_ purposes (as was mentioned) only makes sense if Anneke's Meth is the one playing it, and since she is blocking and not instigating the action, it cannot be her turn (Malk Madness Network notwithstanding). Besides that, the first case used the official DTR (hoses dealer of agg), so there is not even the opportunity for Duane to play the rotschreck, as nowhere did I say Anneke was doing any aggravated damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> wrote: >How many of you players out there agree with >Tom's ruling on Rotschreck and how many >of you think it should be played the way >it was written? > >Inquiring minds want to know. > >Gary > [ quoted text not captured ]

Owen Reynolds (reyn...@cs.iastate.edu) wrote: : Question: has it really been ruled that you can pop your claws and : play Rotschreck from long range? I believe that the ruling on Rotschreck is 'whenever there is the threat of Aggravated damage' - so if I Canine Hordes your already-declared-for-strike Ivory Bow, I can still use a Rotschreck to hose you, because you threatened me with agg. damage. As for whether that covers close-range only agg.damage when declared at long range... Common sense would say no, but to be consistent (hah!) it would probably count for the purposes of Rotschreck. : I was under the impression that you : don't even get to say "using hands for 1, which won't hit" at long range. : You're stuck with no strike at all. Uh-uh. There is _always_ a strike, even if it is a totally ineffectual hands strike when the opponent has maneuvered you to long range. Since it _is_ ineffectual, most people simply declare 'shake my fist' or 'curse you for a coward' or some other such thing, but you are (and must) in fact using a hand strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

tww...@cs.usask.ca (e Code Control) writes: >And the last I heard, you could >not play out-of-turn masters on your own turn. (Or has that ruling changed?) Hey! What?! If this is true, this mess me up! I always keep Sudden Reversals to cover the master cards I want to play--i.e. Reverse his Reversal. This will come to a shock to my gaming group. Where does it say in the rulebook? The rulebook just says "play whenever appropriate". -- Simeon ---------------------------- simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu

tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >e Code Control (tww...@cs.usask.ca) wrote: >: Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: >: : Opponent uses Gilbert Duane to call a vote, and I use Anneke to stop it as >: : it would be harmful to me. Gilbert whips out the concealed Flamethrower >: : and is about to toast my butt. Eeep! Using Tom's ruling, I may now use the >: : Rot. as a defence - instead of Anneke going to torpor (say she was at >: : full) she is instead safe and combat ends with Gilbert cowering in fear in >: : his own torpor. >: Actually, your first scenario will never happen. For Duane to call >: a vote, it must be your turn, right? And the last I heard, you could >: not play out-of-turn masters on your own turn. (Or has that ruling changed?) >: The way things flip-flop around here, who knows...) >The first scenario is fine, and no, the ruling on OOTM has not changed. >Duane is calling the vote, so it is Duane's turn. Anneke is the one on the >wrong end of the flamethrower - the one subject to Aggravated damage. And, just because the scenario listed Duane as calling a vote does NOT make it Gilbert's Controller's Turn. Could be that Gilbert was taking an action on someone else's turn via the Malkavian Madness Network. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

Gary and I play the card as if it affects the target of the strike using aggravated damage. I posted a note about all of the rulings we had heard of regarding rotschreck a while ago. Frankly, I think the card is very useful for many reasons-- it can get around nasty strikes, dodges with additional strikes, and being struck with aggravated damage yourself (which never takes effect because rotschreck ends combat before damage is taken, so you don't go to torpor, but your evil, foul enemy [who must be a vampire of the acting methuselah since it is an out of turn master] does go to torpor. This gives you the opportunity to play amaranth, etc. Also, since no strikes take effect, you can retain your weapon in a strike/steal with first strike scenario. It's a very powerful card, and I wouldn't play a Tremere deck without several. However!!!! Gary and I have both agreed that the Jyhad rules (little book version) clearly (sort of, it's understood through the context on pp. 35-36, I think) state that a vampire at long range cannot declare a short-range strike, so using claws, sengir dagger at long range to use rotschreck is out of the question. Tom has ruled otherwise, but we see no need to overrule the rules unnecessarily. Joseph W. Alfred j-al...@uiuc.edu