Quick question. . .

Alright, A vampire with a title attempts to diablerize a vampire in torpor and uses Daring the Dawn so as not to be blocked. Is the order of effects: 1. Diablerie occurs (with all steps as per rulebook) 2. Bloodhunt 3. Daring the dawn sends diablerist to torpor or is it 1. Diablerie 2. Vampire does to torpor from Daring the dawn 3. Bloodhunt The signifigance of course being that in the first situation the diablerist can use their title to vote on their possible demise but cannot in the second. Thanks, JTP

John P. wrote: > Alright, > > A vampire with a title attempts to diablerize > a vampire in torpor and uses Daring the Dawn > so as not to be blocked. > > Is the order of effects: > 1. Diablerie occurs (with all steps as per rulebook) > 2. Bloodhunt > 3. Daring the dawn sends diablerist to torpor Yes. -- 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 Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:48:29 GMT, "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Is the order of effects: >1. Diablerie occurs (with all steps as per rulebook) >2. Bloodhunt >3. Daring the dawn sends diablerist to torpor > >or is it >1. Diablerie >2. Vampire does to torpor from Daring the dawn >3. Bloodhunt > So by saying that when the first option occurs the bloodhunt occurs before the action resolves? I thought the vote would automatically occur after the diablerie was successful - henced resolved. So if that was the case wouldn't the action modifier effect of Daring the dawn occur immediately after the diablerie but before the next action. The Bloodhunt is defined as a referendum in the rule book(6.5.6) and automatically conducted after a diablerie. I am also aware that the blood hunt isn't an action as it states so in the rules. I'm not quite sure how that fits in but it is late here and I just want to know if a bloodhunt is really the fourth step of diablerie or not. :) What do you guys think?

> I am also aware that the blood hunt isn't an action as it states so in > the rules. I'm not quite sure how that fits in but it is late here and > I just want to know if a bloodhunt is really the fourth step of > diablerie or not. :) > > What do you guys think? LSJ already answered the question. I can't think of any way in which the blood Hunt is not a part of the Diablerie action. but htis question has been addressed before if you want to do a google on it (or follow the link someone kinder than me is likely to put up ;D)

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for pointing that out to me. I took your advice. I got the impression that a bloodhunt is called simulataneously to the diablerie. Hence I believe effects that oocur as the a result of a resolved action occurs after the bloodhunt call. I hopes that right.

Andrew Daley waffled: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:19:38 +0100, Timlagor > <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> I am also aware that the blood hunt isn't an action as it states so in > >> the rules. I'm not quite sure how that fits in but it is late here and > >> I just want to know if a bloodhunt is really the fourth step of > >> diablerie or not. :) > >> > >> What do you guys think? > > > >LSJ already answered the question. > > > >I can't think of any way in which the blood Hunt is not a part of the > >Diablerie action. but this question has been addressed before if you > >want to do a google on it (or follow the link someone kinder than me is > >likely to put up ;D) > Thanks for pointing that out to me. I took your advice. I got the > impression that a bloodhunt is called simulataneously to the > diablerie. Hence I believe effects that oocur as the a result of a > resolved action occurs after the bloodhunt call. > > I hopes that right. That is correct. I meant to say that LSJ had already answered it in the thread (in reply to John P's original question so my answer was pretty much superfluous ;-) I don't think that the bloodhunt is technically part of the diablerie (just follows immediately in its own little "time out") but that appears (afaics) to be a distinction without a difference.