Reading the newsgroups and playing with friends have raised a few
questions that I need to know the answers to, also to explain a few
rulings to my gaming group.
1) What is the official ruling on vampires performing the same action
twice in a turn? I thought that it can't be done, but someone else has
said that it depends on the cards played. For example, a vampire bleeds
me with Social Charms, and I block it. During combat, he plays Majesty
to end combat and untap. Then he wants to bleed me with the same
vampire using Govern the Unaligned. I say that he can't perform a
second bleed action. He says that he is using a different card do
bleed, so it is allowed. What is the ruling? Also, along these lines,
Why is Obedience printed the way it is (vampire may not perform this
action again) if the way I think the rule is is correct? Same for
Rutor's Hand; will it allow a tapped vampire who bled earlier to bleed
again?
2) Is the Crimson Sentinel banned?
3) If I understand the stikes discussion correctly, if Basilia is
equipped with Tiger Claws, in combat she can either strike her opponent
for 3 normal damage or 1 ag damage. The Tiger Claws is a melee weapon
strike, not a boost to her hand strike, thus she does not have 3 ag
damage. Is this correct? Why was this ruling made, if correct?
4) Camille Devereux had a name change to Raven in the V:tES reprint.
She also apparently had a face lift (aka new artwork). Can I have one
of each of these cards in play uncontested, or do they contest each
other?
5) I don't understand the M1kF discussion about requirement vs.
restriction. How does the Inner Circle member using M1kF to take over
the Atonement action result? What are some other examples to clarify
requirement vs. restriction?
6) Why would the Leather Jacket not prevent the damage done by a
vampire playing Burst of Sunlight? The Jacket prevents damage done from
a strike, but it doesn't necessarily have to be your opponent's strike,
does it? Same for Body of Sun at basic level - both vampires take 3 or
1 ag damage, depending on range. The Jacket could be used to prevent
that damage as well, couldn't it?
7) Where can I find the FAQs and rulings lists? I've tried searching
dejanews, but I haven't had much luck.
Scott Halvorson
halv...@cptc.wisc.edu
> 1) What is the official ruling on vampires performing the same action
> twice in a turn? I thought that it can't be done, but someone else has
> said that it depends on the cards played. For example, a vampire bleeds
> me with Social Charms, and I block it. During combat, he plays Majesty
> to end combat and untap. Then he wants to bleed me with the same
> vampire using Govern the Unaligned. I say that he can't perform a
> second bleed action. He says that he is using a different card do
> bleed, so it is allowed. What is the ruling? Also, along these lines,
> Why is Obedience printed the way it is (vampire may not perform this
> action again) if the way I think the rule is is correct? Same for
> Rutor's Hand; will it allow a tapped vampire who bled earlier to bleed
> again?
>
Well, No Repeat Actions (NRA), is essentially a tournament rule. That
is, it is enforced in all tournaments. Many playgroups use NRA as a
house rule because there are a number of repeated action combos that are
very broken. (See bleed/Day Op/Movement of the Slowed Body(or Freak
Drive)/Rapid Healing/Force of Will/lather/rinse/repeat) However, if you
are using NRA (which IMHO you should be), it goes something like this:
There are certain action types defined in the rule book. These are (I
think):
Bleed (either with a card, or the cardless (D)bleed prey) Hunt Recruit
Ally Employ Retainer Equip Political Action Leave Torpor (either with a
card, or the cardless +1 stealth: leave torpor) Rescue from Torpor
Diablerize
I think those are all. Now, there are essentially two rules in NRA. 1) If
an action a minion takes falls into one of these categories, that minion
may not take any other action in that category this turn. 2) A minion may
not play the same action card from your hand more than once a turn.
So, let's say a minion bleeds with Govern the Unaligned. That minion may
not bleed again this turn, and it may not play Govern the Unaligned this
turn.
Say, instead, that a minion uses sup. Govern the Unaligned to move blood
to an uncontrolled vampire. That minion may not play Govern the
Unaligned again this turn. It may, however, play any other actions.
This includes bleeding with any card other than GtU, and it also includes
giving blood to an uncontrolled vampire with Scouting Mission.
> 2) Is the Crimson Sentinel banned?
>
The Banned list is as follows:
Cunctator Motion (V:TES)
High Stakes (V:TES)
Stake (Jyhad)
Rowan Ring (Jyhad)
Monocle of Clarity (Jyhad)
Playing for Keeps (Dark Sovereigns)
Madness of the Bard (Dark Sovereigns)
I find it odd that there are no Ancient Hearts or Sabbat cards listed...
Hmm... Anyway, Crimson Sentinel is not banned, nor do I think it should
be. Basically, the two "paralyze" cards from Jyhad are out, because
paralyzation no longer exists; Monocle of Clarity is out because it's way
too abusive; Madness of the Bard is out, because many tournament players
do not have English as a first language; and all ante cards are out,
because you are never required to play for ante in tournaments.
> 3) If I understand the stikes discussion correctly, if Basilia is
> equipped with Tiger Claws, in combat she can either strike her opponent
> for 3 normal damage or 1 ag damage. The Tiger Claws is a melee weapon
> strike, not a boost to her hand strike, thus she does not have 3 ag
> damage. Is this correct? Why was this ruling made, if correct?
>
This is correct. This is how the card always worked, and how all melee
weapons work. Basilia does not deal agg damage with a Bastard Sword,
Meat Cleaver, Bang Nakh, etc. There may have been a ruling on this, but
it was only clarification, as melee weapon damage is not and has never
been hand damage.
> 4) Camille Devereux had a name change to Raven in the V:tES reprint.
> She also apparently had a face lift (aka new artwork). Can I have one
> of each of these cards in play uncontested, or do they contest each
> other?
>
They have different names, and are thus different vampires. House rules,
such as on JOL, often say that they are the same vampire, however.
> 5) I don't understand the M1kF discussion about requirement vs.
> restriction. How does the Inner Circle member using M1kF to take over
> the Atonement action result? What are some other examples to clarify
> requirement vs. restriction?
>
I'm curious about this one myself. LSJ?
> 6) Why would the Leather Jacket not prevent the damage done by a
> vampire playing Burst of Sunlight? The Jacket prevents damage done from
> a strike, but it doesn't necessarily have to be your opponent's strike,
> does it? Same for Body of Sun at basic level - both vampires take 3 or
> 1 ag damage, depending on range. The Jacket could be used to prevent
> that damage as well, couldn't it?
>
No. I'm not real happy about this myself, but there has been made a
distinction between "damage from a strike" and damage from a side effect
of a strike. Damage from a strike has been ruled to be: damage dealt by
an opposing minion to this minion as a result of a strike card.
> 7) Where can I find the FAQs and rulings lists? I've tried searching
> dejanews, but I haven't had much luck.
>
Well, you should be able to find them on Deja News, since LSJ posts them
every month. Otherwise go to
http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi
-Chris
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Scott Halvorson wrote:
> Reading the newsgroups and playing with friends have raised a few
> questions that I need to know the answers to, also to explain a few
> rulings to my gaming group.
>> 1) What is the official ruling on vampires performing the same action
> twice in a turn? I thought that it can't be done, but someone else has
> said that it depends on the cards played. For example, a vampire bleeds
> me with Social Charms, and I block it. During combat, he plays Majesty
> to end combat and untap. Then he wants to bleed me with the same
> vampire using Govern the Unaligned. I say that he can't perform a
> second bleed action. He says that he is using a different card do
> bleed, so it is allowed. What is the ruling?
The actual rules do not prohibit repeated actions at all. You are
free to Social Charm, untap and Social Charm again if you like.
The Tournament rules, however, include a "No Repeat Actions" clause,
which functions the way you say (a bleed is a bleed, Social Charm
or other card name make no difference).
Most people seem to play the Tournament Rule.
> Also, along these lines,
> Why is Obedience printed the way it is (vampire may not perform this
> action again) if the way I think the rule is is correct?
Because it applies to the non-tournament game as well (and it only
cares about the exact action, not the action type, so would allow
a Govern after a Social Charm).
> Same for
> Rutor's Hand; will it allow a tapped vampire who bled earlier to bleed
> again?
Tournament rules: no.
> 2) Is the Crimson Sentinel banned?
No.
> 3) If I understand the stikes discussion correctly, if Basilia is
> equipped with Tiger Claws, in combat she can either strike her opponent
> for 3 normal damage or 1 ag damage. The Tiger Claws is a melee weapon
> strike, not a boost to her hand strike, thus she does not have 3 ag
> damage. Is this correct? Why was this ruling made, if correct?
It is correct.
It was made because it is the way these things were intended to work.
> 4) Camille Devereux had a name change to Raven in the V:tES reprint.
> She also apparently had a face lift (aka new artwork). Can I have one
> of each of these cards in play uncontested, or do they contest each
> other?
They are distinct; you can have both in play at the same time.
> 5) I don't understand the M1kF discussion about requirement vs.
> restriction. How does the Inner Circle member using M1kF to take over
> the Atonement action result?
Assuming the IC has enough blood to pay the cost, the Atonement
resolves as normal.
> What are some other examples to clarify
> requirement vs. restriction?
Restrictions:
* Empty Ready vampires cannot take any action except "hunt"
* Minions with Talbots Chainsaw cannot hunt
* Assamites (in general) cannot commit diablerie
* Vampire with Minor Boon cannot bleed the Booning Methuselah.
Requirements:
* Inferior (as well as superior) Social Charm requires Presence
* Fifth Tradition requires a Prince/Justicar
* Covenant of Blood requires a Non-Camrilla w/ capacity > 7
* Recruiting a Renegade Garou requires a Gangrel
> 6) Why would the Leather Jacket not prevent the damage done by a
> vampire playing Burst of Sunlight? The Jacket prevents damage done from
> a strike, but it doesn't necessarily have to be your opponent's strike,
> does it? Same for Body of Sun at basic level - both vampires take 3 or
> 1 ag damage, depending on range. The Jacket could be used to prevent
> that damage as well, couldn't it?
No. "Damage from a strike" doesn't include the side-effect
(self-inflicted) damage done by a strike.
> 7) Where can I find the FAQs and rulings lists? I've tried searching
> dejanews, but I haven't had much luck.
Dejanews, search for: "~g rec.*.jyhad & ~a vtesrep* & ~s Errata"
(or replace "Errata" with "Rulings" or "Clarifications").
or go to Wizard's VTES Rules page:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
In article <885174081...@dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu
writes
>> 4) Camille Devereux had a name change to Raven in the V:tES reprint.
>> She also apparently had a face lift (aka new artwork). Can I have one
>> of each of these cards in play uncontested, or do they contest each
>> other?
>>>
>They have different names, and are thus different vampires. House rules,
>such as on JOL, often say that they are the same vampire, however.
Of course, in tournament play, it isn't possible to play both in any
given deck because then you would have a mixed back crypt.
--
James Coupe (remove some crap to reply)
Pah!! I hope it shits in your jogging suit!
In article <IjVhgQAm...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe wrote:
>>> 4) Camille Devereux had a name change to Raven in the V:tES reprint.
>>> She also apparently had a face lift (aka new artwork). Can I have one
>>> of each of these cards in play uncontested, or do they contest each
>>> other?>>
>>They have different names, and are thus different vampires. House rules,
>>such as on JOL, often say that they are the same vampire, however.>>Of course, in tournament play, it isn't possible to play both in any
>given deck because then you would have a mixed back crypt.
Well, card sleeves are legal in tournaments provided no-one asks you to
remove them. Could black-backed card sleeves be used (legally) to get
past this problem, or is a mixed crypt still considered a mixed crypt when
the backs cannot be seen?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
John Whelan wrote:
>
> Well, card sleeves are legal in tournaments provided no-one asks you to
> remove them. Could black-backed card sleeves be used (legally) to get
> past this problem, or is a mixed crypt still considered a mixed crypt when
> the backs cannot be seen?
?
Black-backed sleeves can be used to turn a mixed-back crypt into a
single-backed (black) crypt.
Similarly for any other style of opaque-backed sleeves, so long as
the sleeves are uniform, before anyone asks.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe (ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk.bloodyunsolicitedcommerciale-mail) wrote:
: In article <885174081...@dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu
: writes
: >> 4) Camille Devereux had a name change to Raven in the V:tES reprint.: >> She also apparently had a face lift (aka new artwork). Can I have one
: >> of each of these cards in play uncontested, or do they contest each
: >> other?
: >>
: >
: >They have different names, and are thus different vampires. House rules,
: >such as on JOL, often say that they are the same vampire, however.: Of course, in tournament play, it isn't possible to play both in any: given deck because then you would have a mixed back crypt.
Well, according to my understanding that rule is optional. (As is the
40-60 rule on mixed backs in the library.)
If I'm wrong, please let me know, as I'm going to be running a tourney,
and I don't plan on using either of the mixing restriction rules.
Josh
..don't let them grind you down..
In article <34C49D...@wizards.com>, LSJ wrote:
>John Whelan wrote:>> Well, card sleeves are legal in tournaments provided no-one asks you to
>> remove them. Could black-backed card sleeves be used (legally) to get
>> past this problem, or is a mixed crypt still considered a mixed crypt when
>> the backs cannot be seen?>?
>
>Black-backed sleeves can be used to turn a mixed-back crypt into a
>single-backed (black) crypt.
>
>Similarly for any other style of opaque-backed sleeves, so long as
>the sleeves are uniform, before anyone asks.
Just to clarify: that *does* mean you can play Raven and Camille
Devereaux in the same crypt, even in tournament play, yes?
[ quoted text not captured ]
John Whelan wrote:
> In article <34C49D...@wizards.com>, LSJ wrote:
> >John Whelan wrote:
> >> Well, card sleeves are legal in tournaments provided no-one asks you to
> >> remove them. Could black-backed card sleeves be used (legally) to get
> >> past this problem, or is a mixed crypt still considered a mixed crypt when
> >> the backs cannot be seen?
> >?
> >
> >Black-backed sleeves can be used to turn a mixed-back crypt into a
> >single-backed (black) crypt.
> >
> >Similarly for any other style of opaque-backed sleeves, so long as
> >the sleeves are uniform, before anyone asks.
>
> Just to clarify: that *does* mean you can play Raven and Camille
> Devereaux in the same crypt, even in tournament play, yes?
?
If you're allowed to play with your opaqued-backed sleeves,
then yes. And before anyone asks for further "clarification",
you can also play with any other combination of Vampire-backed
and Jyhad-backed vampires in your crypt.
If you are forced to remove the sleeves, however, you may find
yourself with an illegal crypt.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> : Of course, in tournament play, it isn't possible to play both in any
> : given deck because then you would have a mixed back crypt.
>
> Well, according to my understanding that rule is optional. (As is the
> 40-60 rule on mixed backs in the library.)
>
> If I'm wrong, please let me know, as I'm going to be running a tourney,
> and I don't plan on using either of the mixing restriction rules.
You are correct. By default, neither the uniform-back crypt nor the
40%-60% ratio library rule are used in DCI tournaments. To use
either (or both) of these rules, the tournament Officials, Organizers,
and/or Judges must give "adequate notice to participants" that the
optional rule(s) will be used.
Excerpts from the DCI Rules:
Important note regarding all optional rules: Tournament Organizers,
Tournament Officials, and Judges who choose to use any rule marked
"optional" must provide adequate notice to participants prior to the beginning
of the tournament. Optional rules may not be invoked or altered either by
Tournament Officials or players at any other time.
I. DECK CONSTRUCTION
[...]
OPTIONAL: Prior to the beginning of a sanctioned tournament, the
Judge may declare that players who build decks from cards from both
JyhadTM and Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM sets should ensure that
between forty and sixty percent of their library be from the JyhadTM set.
[...]
OPTIONAL: The Judge may declare that players may build their
crypts with cards from either Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM or
JyhadTM, but not both.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
>
> John Whelan wrote:
[clip]
> If you're allowed to play with your opaqued-backed sleeves,
> then yes. And before anyone asks for further "clarification",
> you can also play with any other combination of Vampire-backed
> and Jyhad-backed vampires in your crypt.
>
> If you are forced to remove the sleeves, however, you may find
> yourself with an illegal crypt.
Actually, LSJ, I believe the DCI's position on sleeves is that the cards
inside the sleeves must be legal. This came about due to the Pro Tour
Magic decks that had different card backs which were illegal for
tournaments. Practically speaking though, no one will find out that
your deck is illegal unless the sleeves are requested to be removed.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Robert Goudie wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > If you're allowed to play with your opaqued-backed sleeves,
> > then yes. And before anyone asks for further "clarification",
> > you can also play with any other combination of Vampire-backed
> > and Jyhad-backed vampires in your crypt.
> >
> > If you are forced to remove the sleeves, however, you may find
> > yourself with an illegal crypt.
>
> Actually, LSJ, I believe the DCI's position on sleeves is that the cards
> inside the sleeves must be legal. This came about due to the Pro Tour
> Magic decks that had different card backs which were illegal for
> tournaments. Practically speaking though, no one will find out that
> your deck is illegal unless the sleeves are requested to be removed.
Practically speaking, they *would* find out if you brought out both
Camille and Raven. They would be more likely to cry foul as well, as they
might perceive the player as using the black-backed card sleeves to "get
away with" something that would normally be disallowed.
I play with opaque backed card sleeves all the time. The only time anyone
ever cried foul was when Raven and Camille came out together (and this
wasn't even tournament).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris wrote:
>
> What about is you sleeve your cards and insert a uniform backing into each
> of them.
> Does this get around the 40-60% rule?
Again no. The cards inside the sleeves must be legal. You never know
when people may ask you to remove them.
Also, the double-packing opens up the possibility that a player may be
side-boarding or even switching what cards are in the sleeves during a
game.
"Oh, CRAP! Another Skill Card! Fortunately, I have this "Deal with the
Devil behind it in the sleeve!"
-Robert
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
In article <6a810b$3hb$1...@pinah.connect.com.au>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. The DCI rules actually specify card sets, not card backs. Nothing (not
even opaque-backed sleeves) gets around that restriction.
Sorry for confusing the issue earlier.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <34C803...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
>Chris wrote:>>
>> What about is you sleeve your cards and insert a uniform backing into each
>> of them.
>> Does this get around the 40-60% rule?>>Again no. The cards inside the sleeves must be legal. You never know
>when people may ask you to remove them.
>
>Also, the double-packing opens up the possibility that a player may be
>side-boarding or even switching what cards are in the sleeves during a
>game.
>"Oh, CRAP! Another Skill Card! Fortunately, I have this "Deal with the
>Devil behind it in the sleeve!"
>
For that sort of reason, I've seen people do it with Magic and Netrunner
cards.
Looks incredibly odd and you should see the Magic players when you start
a game. "Why are those cards face down?"
--
James Coupe (remove your inhibitions to reply)
If I jumped I should not see the stones rise up to meet me, the fog would hide
them from me. The pain would be sharp and sudden as she said. The fall would
break my neck. It would not be slow, like drowning. It would soon be over.
> Actually, LSJ, I believe the DCI's position on sleeves is that the cards
> inside the sleeves must be legal. This came about due to the Pro Tour
> Magic decks that had different card backs which were illegal for
> tournaments. Practically speaking though, no one will find out that
> your deck is illegal unless the sleeves are requested to be removed.
>> -Robert
>
> Robert Goudie
> rrgo...@earthlink.net
As I see it, this 40-60% rule makes sense regarding the possibility to
mark cards, e.g. as offensive or defensive cards. So when playing with black
shielded sleeves it doesn't matter at all what cards are inside (regarding
backs of course).
I don't how other people play in official enviroment, with or without
sleeves, or if there ever were any problems with the sleeves; within our
club we mostly play with sleeves and if you haven't got black sleeves and
don't want to build a 40:60 deck, you just put a vampire-backed card behind
the jyhad-backed and everything's allright (not the most professional
solution but acceptable)...
Xandl from C*A*R*D, Vienna, Austria
:-o