As i've said before, i'm not a GREAT fan of ALL the texts in Bloodlines. Most
of the weirdnesses don't have any forseeable effect on game-play, but as i gird
my loins to build my first Samedi deck there is one text which is bothering me
more and more.
Infection [BL]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost:2 blood
Discipline:Thanatosis/Fortitude
[for] Prevent all damage from the opponent's strikes this round.
[thn] Prevent all damage to a ghoul (ally or retainer) in combat. Usable by a
vampire not involved in the combat.
[THN] Only usable at the end of a round in which this vampire successfully
inflicted damage on the opposing vampire. Put this card on the opposing
vampire. The vampire with this card cannot block the vampire playing this card.
It's the inferior Thanatosis text which i'm worried about. Shouldn't this say
IN A ROUND OF COMBAT, or FROM AN OPPONENT'S STRIKES IN COMBAT, or something? Or
can one really rush with the Arms Dealer, trap, play Infection at superior
thanatosis and then lucky blow every third round until one's opponent strikes
to end combat or falls over? That seems a LITTLE bit powerful to me, since the
only other way to do something similar [Memories of Mortality] costs a master
phase and a pool, and targets a single vampire [not an ally]. Forgive me if
this has already been ruled upon, but i have done the appropriate Google search
and found nothing pertinent.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Legbiter wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Making a Samedi/Pander -deck? Target for thn effect must be a ghoul, so
I guess Ghouled Street Thug with a built in 1R strike and basic potence
to boot is what you're looking for. (Or should that be NOT looking for
*grin*)
Sten During
<snip>
> can one really rush with the Arms Dealer
Whoops, i meant Guardian or Rafastio Ghoul, or Ghouls of Plaza Moreia, of
course. Sorry!
<snip>
Forgive me if
> this has already been ruled upon, but i have done the appropriate Google search
> and found nothing pertinent.
And now i've been through all the on-line rulings too and i'm STILL confused.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in
news:a353186db23b16a6a57...@mygate.mailgate.org:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I believe this should be read: "Prevent all damage >>being currently
applied<< to a ghoul in combat".
That is, you can prevent all damage during a given strike resolution, but
it won't prevent any damage in other strike resolutions, or at any other
time. All cards that do so (ie, Skin of Steel) say it explicitly, by
default you can't 'save' your prevention points. Treat it like a Hidden
Strength where X is all damage being applied to the minion.
Flux
<snip>
> >
> > Infection [BL]
<snip>
> > [thn] Prevent all damage to a ghoul (ally or retainer) in combat. Usable by a
> > vampire not involved in the combat.
<snip>
>
> Making a Samedi/Pander -deck? Target for thn effect must be a ghoul, so
> I guess Ghouled Street Thug with a built in 1R strike and basic potence
> to boot is what you're looking for. (Or should that be NOT looking for
> *grin*)
>
> Sten During
EXCELLENY idea, NOW i know what to do with all those Street Thugs i collected
for my TOTALLY non-functional Pander-rush deck. Thanks, Sten! i will call this
the Sten-gun deck, in your honour. Bwahahahaha. i'm gonna hold off building it
until i hear from LSJ, though, since the last time i came up with something
this, erm, questionable [multiply-untapping Fida'i] Scott kicked it into touch
PDQ.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>>Making a Samedi/Pander -deck? Target for thn effect must be a ghoul, so
>>I guess Ghouled Street Thug with a built in 1R strike and basic potence
>>to boot is what you're looking for. (Or should that be NOT looking for
>>*grin*)
>>
>> Sten During
>>>
> EXCELLENY idea, NOW i know what to do with all those Street Thugs i collected
> for my TOTALLY non-functional Pander-rush deck. Thanks, Sten! i will call this
> the Sten-gun deck, in your honour. Bwahahahaha. i'm gonna hold off building it
> until i hear from LSJ, though, since the last time i came up with something
> this, erm, questionable [multiply-untapping Fida'i] Scott kicked it into touch
> PDQ.
>
You do build some rather obscure Ally-decks, don't you? Isn't the
multiplying Rafastio Ghoul thingie a childe of yours?
I've been looking for it with the upcoming storyline-events in
mind, basically wanting to make a 12 Hesha Ruhadze crypt for the
storyline only (He comes back to Baltimore, starts manipulating
humans (VTES Allies) and it all backfires when Wendell Delburton
is contacted and eventually NONE of the clans take control over
Baltimore - allies do).
If I read Burst of Sunlight correctly a normal combat between a
Rafastio and a vampire should torporize the opposition and still
leave the ghoul alive as she is not a vampire, which just,
maybe just, may make such a deck viable ;)
Sten During
<snip>
>
>
> You do build some rather obscure Ally-decks, don't you? Isn't the
> multiplying Rafastio Ghoul thingie a childe of yours?
It is, it is. i DO love that deck and, odd though it is, it is quite
competitive. And the Ascendance/Autarkis Persection/Allies deck is also one of
mine, not quite so good but HILARIOUS when it DOES work.
>
> I've been looking for it with the upcoming storyline-events in
> mind, basically wanting to make a 12 Hesha Ruhadze crypt for the
> storyline only (He comes back to Baltimore, starts manipulating
> humans (VTES Allies) and it all backfires when Wendell Delburton
> is contacted and eventually NONE of the clans take control over
> Baltimore - allies do).
EXCELLENT plan, i was thinking of something rather similar though not for the
storyline events ... my tech being that Jake Washington comes to town and
recruits Wendell, Talaq, the Order of Hermes Cabal and ANY NUMBER of Rafastio
ghouls, ie a TOTALLY vampire-free deck. But i think your version would be
better, because of its MASSIVE pool-gain potential.
>
> If I read Burst of Sunlight correctly a normal combat between a
> Rafastio and a vampire should torporize the opposition and still
> leave the ghoul alive as she is not a vampire, which just,
> maybe just, may make such a deck viable ;)
Absolutely correct, you need Rotshreck to be absolutely SURE of a kill [which
means you've got to be reacting], and maybe some Vulnerability to clear up the
mess afterwards.
<snip>
[ quoted text not captured ]
Flux wrote:
> "Legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in> > [thn] Prevent all damage to a ghoul (ally or retainer) in combat.
> > Usable by a vampire not involved in the combat.> > It's the inferior Thanatosis text which i'm worried about. Shouldn't
> > this say IN A ROUND OF COMBAT, or FROM AN OPPONENT'S STRIKES IN COMBAT,
> > or something?> I believe this should be read: "Prevent all damage >>being currently> applied<< to a ghoul in combat".
Correct. Damage prevention cannot be held for later nor retroactively applied.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Legbiter wrote:
>>If I read Burst of Sunlight correctly a normal combat between a
>>Rafastio and a vampire should torporize the opposition and still
>>leave the ghoul alive as she is not a vampire, which just,
>>maybe just, may make such a deck viable ;)
>>>
> Absolutely correct, you need Rotshreck to be absolutely SURE of a kill [which
> means you've got to be reacting], and maybe some Vulnerability to clear up the
> mess afterwards.
>
Hmm, then I need The Parthenon as well as I doubt that anyone will be
friendly enough to wait an entire turn for me to play Vulnerability.
Sten During
In message <a353186db23b16a6a57...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
Legbiter <legb...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>[for] Prevent all damage from the opponent's strikes this round.
>[thn] Prevent all damage to a ghoul (ally or retainer) in combat. Usable by a
>vampire not involved in the combat.
>[THN] Only usable at the end of a round in which this vampire successfully
>inflicted damage on the opposing vampire. Put this card on the opposing
>vampire. The vampire with this card cannot block the vampire playing this card.
>
>It's the inferior Thanatosis text which i'm worried about. Shouldn't this say
>IN A ROUND OF COMBAT, or FROM AN OPPONENT'S STRIKES IN COMBAT, or something?
As with most such "Prevent .... damage" cards, it only applies to damage
currently being handled.
Skin of Rock, for instance, says "Prevent 2 damage" - it doesn't hang
around, however, even if you've only prevented one damage.
--
James Coupe "Never give in to them," she whispered. "No matter what
PGP 0x5D623D5D EB they do or how important you feel it is to get their accep-
D690ECD7A1FB457CA21 tance. Never kill part of yourself for them. Because other
3D7E668C3695D623D5D people will notice that part is missing before you do."
> Making a Samedi/Pander -deck? Target for thn effect must be a ghoul, so
> I guess Ghouled Street Thug with a built in 1R strike and basic potence
> to boot is what you're looking for. (Or should that be NOT looking for
> *grin*)
I've been thinking of a Hell Hound deck with Charisma. get out 3-4 Hounds
for one pool each and use as blockers with London Evening Star or something.
Then you can use all your vampires forward =)
Roger
> EXCELLENY idea, NOW i know what to do with all those Street Thugs i
collected
> for my TOTALLY non-functional Pander-rush deck. Thanks, Sten! i will call
this
> the Sten-gun deck, in your honour. Bwahahahaha. i'm gonna hold off
building it
> until i hear from LSJ, though, since the last time i came up with
something
> this, erm, questionable [multiply-untapping Fida'i] Scott kicked it into
touch
> PDQ.
Heh, that happend to me too, just as I was collecting Fida'i to build a deck
of em ( minus 1 ) LSJ made that evil ruling.
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<9x3r3$nn$tR8...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <a353186db23b16a6a57...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Legbiter <legb...@mailandnews.com> writes:
> >[for] Prevent all damage from the opponent's strikes this round.
> >[thn] Prevent all damage to a ghoul (ally or retainer) in combat. Usable by a
> >vampire not involved in the combat.
> >[THN] Only usable at the end of a round in which this vampire successfully
> >inflicted damage on the opposing vampire. Put this card on the opposing
> >vampire. The vampire with this card cannot block the vampire playing this card.
> >
> >It's the inferior Thanatosis text which i'm worried about. Shouldn't this say
> >IN A ROUND OF COMBAT, or FROM AN OPPONENT'S STRIKES IN COMBAT, or something?
>
> As with most such "Prevent .... damage" cards, it only applies to damage
> currently being handled.
>
> Skin of Rock, for instance, says "Prevent 2 damage" - it doesn't hang
> around, however, even if you've only prevented one damage.
Fair enough, and thanks to you, Flux and Scott for clearing that up
for me. It was the "prevent all damage to a ghoul IN COMBAT" that was
foxing me, but now i see that this is a restriction to prevent you
using it against an out-of-combat damage source such as Shadow Twin.
In message <22fea992.02011...@posting.google.com>, legbiter
<legb...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>It was the "prevent all damage to a ghoul IN COMBAT" that was
>foxing me, but now i see that this is a restriction to prevent you
>using it against an out-of-combat damage source such as Shadow Twin.
Well, being a combat card it would be pretty much limited in that way
anyway. The text is mostly reminder.
[ quoted text not captured ]