Did you know that the artwork for Rutor's Hand was originally intended
for Tremere Convocation (the original artwork says Tremere Convocation
on the side of it). However, when they (WotC) saw it, they didn't it
quite fit that card.
They had a card in the sidelines which let you get extra untaps ath the
cost of aggro damage, but hadn't a name for it. With the artwork, they
went off and came up with a name for it.
Just something you might be interested in.
(I know this because the artwork for Rutor's Hand was the prize at
EuroGenCon, and Matt Green elaborated a little.
--
James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply by e-mail)
If you find you are falling into madness - dive
In article <NHX73BAV...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <james@obea
h.demon.co.uk.nospam> writes
>Did you know that the artwork for Rutor's Hand was originally intended
>for Tremere Convocation (the original artwork says Tremere Convocation
>on the side of it). However, when they (WotC) saw it, they didn't it
>quite fit that card.
>
>They had a card in the sidelines which let you get extra untaps ath the
>cost of aggro damage, but hadn't a name for it. With the artwork, they
>went off and came up with a name for it.
>
>Just something you might be interested in.
>
>(I know this because the artwork for Rutor's Hand was the prize at
>EuroGenCon, and Matt Green elaborated a little.
Did you play in the event James ?? if so which desk ?
Andy Thorn UK cam member UK68
E-mail An...@majere.demon.co.uk
Web page www.majere.demon.co.uk
*************************************************************
Software consultant
Anite Systems Andy....@anitesystems.com [NT / VMS / UNIX]
718 banbury Ave
Slough
In article <jLfGlBAG...@majere.demon.co.uk>, andy
<maj...@majere.demon.co.uk> writes
[ quoted text not captured ]
What do you mean, which desk?
If you want to know who I was, I was the tall one with crap hair (blond
going dark). I played on the four player game twice (first and third).
I was playing a Giovanni-Lasombra deck which fell over in a heap. I
know in the third game that the bloke from the model shop in Blackpool
was in my game. In the first game, there was a seductive bleed Ventrue
deck played by someone I know. In the second game there was the bloke
with the stealth bleed deck (got ousted last in the final).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris wrote:
> If you are down to 2 players and Meth A calls
> and passes a Dramatic Upheaval, does Meth
> B lose his turn?
> I say no.
No. DU says nothing about anyone losing a turn.
If the DU passes, then you swap places. The person who
called it (assuming it wasn't a Madness Network action)
continues her turn (which is currently in the middle of
the minion phase). At the end of her turn, the Methuselah
to her left (or right, if Reversal of Fortunes is in
effect) takes her turn.
Net result in a two player game: nothing (except that a
vampire is tapped and a vote has been successful).
> I remember reading this a few places but I cannot
> find it in the erratta. Can you 5th Tradition yourself?
> I've seen this issue go both ways, first saying no
> then saying yes.
> I say yes.
Yes. Card text says nothing about not being able to choose
the acting vampire.
--
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 ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Couple of questions arose in last nights game:
If you are down to 2 players and Meth A calls
and passes a Dramatic Upheaval, does Meth
B lose his turn?
I say no.
I remember reading this a few places but I cannot
find it in the erratta. Can you 5th Tradition yourself?
I've seen this issue go both ways, first saying no
then saying yes.
I say yes.
And the real answers are?
Sorrow
--
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, LSJ wrote:
> [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News]>
> Chris wrote:
> > If you are down to 2 players and Meth A calls
> > and passes a Dramatic Upheaval, does Meth
> > B lose his turn?
> > I say no.
>> No. DU says nothing about anyone losing a turn.
>
> If the DU passes, then you swap places. The person who
> called it (assuming it wasn't a Madness Network action)
> continues her turn (which is currently in the middle of
> the minion phase). At the end of her turn, the Methuselah
> to her left (or right, if Reversal of Fortunes is in
> effect) takes her turn.
>
> Net result in a two player game: nothing (except that a
> vampire is tapped and a vote has been successful).
>
Once, out of boredom, a two-player table actually switched places
after a Dramatic Upheval. They already knew who was going to win, and had
plenty of time left (the loser was actually ousted on the next action),
but as they happily carried their cards and counters from one place to the
other, I thought "how illegal is to do this? Can one of them be accused of
stalling if the other refuses to switch places?" (some people may wonder
why on earth they have any reason to switch, but there may be a real-world
reason if you have the air-conditioning on your back or you have a better
view from the other seat...)
> > I remember reading this a few places but I cannot
> > find it in the erratta. Can you 5th Tradition yourself?
> > I've seen this issue go both ways, first saying no
> > then saying yes.
> > I say yes.
>> Yes. Card text says nothing about not being able to choose
> the acting vampire.
>
This raises a timing issue that I don't think I've seen asked
before. I know LSJ has on his complete rules reference that first you pay
the cost associated with the action and *then* you resolve the action (so,
if you have a Prince do a 5th Trad. on himself, he'd end up with full
blood). Where did you get this from? The rulebook only states that [in
other words] "at the time you resolve the action, you may have to burn
blood", wich is quite ambiguous for 5th Trad.
Also, Voter Captivation says the Vampire casting the vote gains X
blood where X is the number of votes the motion passed by. At superior
presence, the card allows you to put up to 2 of this blood in your pool.
Are these X blood restricted by the acting minion's capacity? (i.e.
Francois Villon at full capacity couldn't have his controller gain 2 blood
to his pool if the vote passed for +2 votes?)
Thanks!
David Pontes
8[
David Pontes <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, LSJ wrote:
> > Chris wrote:
> > > I remember reading this a few places but I cannot
> > > find it in the erratta. Can you 5th Tradition yourself?
> > > I've seen this issue go both ways, first saying no
> > > then saying yes.
> > > I say yes.
> >
> > Yes. Card text says nothing about not being able to choose
> > the acting vampire.
>
> This raises a timing issue that I don't think I've seen asked
> before. I know LSJ has on his complete rules reference that first you pay
> the cost associated with the action and *then* you resolve the action (so,
> if you have a Prince do a 5th Trad. on himself, he'd end up with full
> blood). Where did you get this from? The rulebook only states that [in
> other words] "at the time you resolve the action, you may have to burn
> blood", wich is quite ambiguous for 5th Trad.
Ruling from Tom: If you don't (can't) pay the cost, the action fizzles.
Which leads to the fact that the cost is paid before the action resolves.
> Also, Voter Captivation says the Vampire casting the vote gains X
> blood where X is the number of votes the motion passed by. At superior
> presence, the card allows you to put up to 2 of this blood in your pool.
> Are these X blood restricted by the acting minion's capacity? (i.e.
> Francois Villon at full capacity couldn't have his controller gain 2 blood
> to his pool if the vote passed for +2 votes?)
No. The vampire will gain the full X (or X-2, if 2 goes to your pool).
Then, after gaining, the blood in excess of the vampire's capacity
immediately drains off, as always.
[ quoted text not captured ]
: I believe the original question might be better phrased as: at superior,
: does the vampire have to gain the full X blood before 2 are passed on to
: its controller (from it, meaning a vampire could never end with more than
: 2 blood less than its full capacity), or are both effects simultaneous
: (meaning both the vampire and controller get the blood/pool from the
: blood bank and the pool does not travel via the vampire's blood)?
Here's the breakdown. The vote passes, by X votes. Frank plays Voter
Captivation. If Frank has inf. Pre, he gains X blood, and the excess
drains off. If Frank has sup. Pre, you have the option of taking up to
two of the blood that _would_ have gone to Frank and putting it in your
pool instead. _Then_ Frank gets X-2 blood (or X-1, or X, depending on how
much you put into your pool), and the excess drains off. In particular,
if Frank was at full capacity, you can add two to your pool, even though
the remainder goes to Frank and immediately drains off.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something
about courage."
-- Blaine Faulkner, "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'", X-Files
Joseph W. Alfred wrote:
>
> In article <8761390...@dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com says...> > David Pontes <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, LSJ wrote:
> > > > Chris wrote:
> > > Also, Voter Captivation says the Vampire casting the vote gains X
> > > blood where X is the number of votes the motion passed by. At superior
> > > presence, the card allows you to put up to 2 of this blood in your pool.
> > > Are these X blood restricted by the acting minion's capacity? (i.e.
> > > Francois Villon at full capacity couldn't have his controller gain 2 blood
> > > to his pool if the vote passed for +2 votes?)
> >
> > No. The vampire will gain the full X (or X-2, if 2 goes to your pool).
> > Then, after gaining, the blood in excess of the vampire's capacity
> > immediately drains off, as always.
> >> Do you mean no, these X blood are not restricted by the acting minion's
> capacity, or no, Francois Villon cannot use the superior and pass 2 pool
> to his controller? Not clear.
By "No." I mean: the answer to the question posed is "no."
The question was: "Are these X blood restricted by the acting
minion's capacity?".
As it happens, the "no" answer also applies to the parenthetical
question that followed. But since the parenthetical question was
stated in the negative, English speakers receive no information
from a "no" or a "yes" answer). However, since the parenthetical
question was given to be equivalent to the main question, one
could assume that a "no" to one is the same as a "no" to the other.
The ambiguity (if one attempts to apply the main question's answer
to only the parenthetical question) is further clarified by the
sentence that followed it, which made it clear that the X is
always gained in full (although it may be split between the vampire
and his controller as allowed by card text).
> From your formula it appears the former:
>
> Francois gains X-2 blood (X=2), therefore zero, while his controller
> gains 2 pool.
This is the correct.
> I believe the original question might be better phrased as: at superior,
> does the vampire have to gain the full X blood before 2 are passed on to
> its controller (from it, meaning a vampire could never end with more than
> 2 blood less than its full capacity), or are both effects simultaneous
> (meaning both the vampire and controller get the blood/pool from the
> blood bank and the pool does not travel via the vampire's blood)?
The latter, which follows from card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]