Q: Rulings Needed

On 23 Aug 1996 st...@jane.uh.edu wrote: > #1: It was stated in a recent(?) Duelist that Dr. Jest's special ability > was optional. Is this so for others such as Arika and Leandro? If so, > regarding Leandro, can you choose which Methuselah's must pay for transfers? > I would assume that the only reason that Dr. Jest's ability is optional is > because it is done on the controlling Methuselah's turn, but I would like > a clarification. Sorry, I don't jhave the resources to find a specific answer from the Rules Team. LSJ might be able to save you, though. > #2: Rotschreck! Player A's Anson trys to burn Player B's Bindusara with > a flamethrower when Player C plays Rotschreck. Who goes to torpor? This > card has been bounced back and forth at least once between 2 different > rulings, and I'm not sure which one it ended up with. Officially: The vampire _using_ the aggravated damage is hosed. Unofficially: The card makes more sense on a number of levels if the _target_ is hosed. With this interpretation, the card works as the wording on the card implies, the card stops being a hoser card, and instead becomes a useful card to _build_up_ a strategy, and outrageous Stupid Things cease to happen (Basilia: "Arggh!!!! My HANDS!") > #3: Mask of a (bunch of) Faces. If Smudge attempts to diablerize a vampire > in torpor and is blocked, can I use Thetmes to continue his action even > though Assamites cannot diablerize? Can I play the Mask at all or does his > action just "fizzle" or does he diablerize? If a minion taking over an action is unable to perform the action, it fizzles. > #4: If a Ravnos with Superior Chimerstry plays horrid reality and turns up > an ivory bow while another bow is in play. Does it contest immediately? > Seems obvious, but just checking. Yes. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

#1: It was stated in a recent(?) Duelist that Dr. Jest's special ability was optional. Is this so for others such as Arika and Leandro? If so, regarding Leandro, can you choose which Methuselah's must pay for transfers? I would assume that the only reason that Dr. Jest's ability is optional is because it is done on the controlling Methuselah's turn, but I would like a clarification. #2: Rotschreck! Player A's Anson trys to burn Player B's Bindusara with a flamethrower when Player C plays Rotschreck. Who goes to torpor? This card has been bounced back and forth at least once between 2 different rulings, and I'm not sure which one it ended up with. #3: Mask of a (bunch of) Faces. If Smudge attempts to diablerize a vampire in torpor and is blocked, can I use Thetmes to continue his action even though Assamites cannot diablerize? Can I play the Mask at all or does his action just "fizzle" or does he diablerize? #4: If a Ravnos with Superior Chimerstry plays horrid reality and turns up an ivory bow while another bow is in play. Does it contest immediately? Seems obvious, but just checking. -Thanks

st...@jane.uh.edu (Martir, Edgardo S.) writes: >#1: It was stated in a recent(?) Duelist that Dr. Jest's special ability >was optional. Is this so for others such as Arika and Leandro? If so, >regarding Leandro, can you choose which Methuselah's must pay for transfers? >I would assume that the only reason that Dr. Jest's ability is optional is >because it is done on the controlling Methuselah's turn, but I would like >a clarification. The duelist is (as it frequently is) incorrect. Dr. Jest's ability is not optional, nor are Arika's and Leandro's abilities. The duelist repeatedly printed the incorrect (exact opposite) ruling on Rotschreck, ultimately causing so much confusion about the card that the card had to be removed from the set. (Granted, card text and illogical rulings aided this decline, but those two alone are not enough to cause the death of a card). Ignore the duelist and stick to the Ruling posted here by Shawn (you'll also have to ignore the Rulings on the WotC web page, since those rulings are the same as the ones in "Darkness Unleased(sic)" and include several blatant falacies. >#2: Rotschreck! Player A's Anson trys to burn Player B's Bindusara with >a flamethrower when Player C plays Rotschreck. Who goes to torpor? This >card has been bounced back and forth at least once between 2 different >rulings, and I'm not sure which one it ended up with. Anson. The ruling has (officialy) always been the Rotschreck hoses the vampire *dealing* aggravated damage. Dueslist printed the opposite ruling twice, but the opposite ruling was never the official one. >#3: Mask of a (bunch of) Faces. If Smudge attempts to diablerize a vampire >in torpor and is blocked, can I use Thetmes to continue his action even >though Assamites cannot diablerize? Can I play the Mask at all or does his >action just "fizzle" or does he diablerize? No. The mask cannot be used to allow a minion to take over an action that he is explicitly prohibited from taking (such as taking over a hunt action if you are weilding Talbot's Chainsaw). >#4: If a Ravnos with Superior Chimerstry plays horrid reality and turns up >an ivory bow while another bow is in play. Does it contest immediately? >Seems obvious, but just checking. Yes. Even though it is an illusion in the game world, card text doesn't address the illusion issue, so standard contesting rules apply. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A one-bit brain with a http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | parity error. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson writes: >>#2: Rotschreck! >The ruling has (officialy) always been the Rotschreck hoses the vampire >*dealing* aggravated damage. Dueslist printed the opposite ruling twice, >but the opposite ruling was never the official one. Isn't Roetschrek a bit silly as is? I mean I can understand a vampire going ape (fox?) 'cause he's got a flamethrower, but what about, like, Wolf Claws? "Got in Himmel! I need a manicure!" -- ________________ ______ ___@^^^^\ / \ Will drop pants for food / \ @ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ > (^^^^^\ _______ ___/ \---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz / \_____________/ \__________________________________/

>> #4: If a Ravnos with Superior Chimerstry plays horrid reality >> and turns up an ivory bow while another bow is in play. Does >> it contest immediately? >> Seems obvious, but just checking. > Yes. I've got a problem with this : if this is the case with Horrid Reality, why is it not the case with Illusions of the Kindred (apart from the fact that it's written on the card of course.) Surely they are both illusions and should work in similar fashions ?

Benoit Felten <10164...@CompuServe.COM> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Because card text allows the duplicate vampire to avoid contesting, but there is no such card text for the weapon. I have a problem with it as well, which is why my house rules include having the Horrid Reality weapon avoid contesting as well. (See the house rules list posted here last week). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | > Be careful who you correct. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | That should read "Be careful whom Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | you correct." -- Steffan O'Sullivan

On 26 Aug 1996 12:00:17 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >st...@jane.uh.edu (Martir, Edgardo S.) writes: > >>#1: It was stated in a recent(?) Duelist that Dr. Jest's special ability >>was optional. Is this so for others such as Arika and Leandro? If so, >>regarding Leandro, can you choose which Methuselah's must pay for transfers? >>I would assume that the only reason that Dr. Jest's ability is optional is >>because it is done on the controlling Methuselah's turn, but I would like >>a clarification. > >The duelist is (as it frequently is) incorrect. Dr. Jest's ability is >not optional, nor are Arika's and Leandro's abilities. The duelist So, the duelist is wrong? You'd think they would be on the same page as WotC. Shawn? -Magic

Magic (ma...@tamu.edu) wrote: : On 26 Aug 1996 12:00:17 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott : Johnson) wrote: : >The duelist is (as it frequently is) incorrect. Dr. Jest's ability is : >not optional, nor are Arika's and Leandro's abilities. The duelist : So, the duelist is wrong? You'd think they would be on the same page : as WotC. Shawn? This has been brought up time and again... my favorite included the propogated mistake corrected by Tom Wylie: Tom: (7/30/95) The ruling on Rotschreck has not changed for several months. The errata entry in Duelist #3 was definitely a mistake; I believe this was noted later in either the Duelist, or the Duelist Companion. The entry in Duelist #4 must have been a propogation of the error from #3. -spongy