I have several questions, and I'm not sure I can remember them all, but
here they are:
1. Is Read Intentions a "strike: dodge" at the superior auspex level,
because it just says "dodge" on the card. And if it is not a "strike:
dodge," does that mean you can do damage that round and still dodge the
other vampire's strike?
2. Why is Army of Rats not cumulative? That is, why doesn't your prey
take two loss of pool during your untap if you have two Army of Rats?
3. Am I correct in thinking that you cannot Drain Essence or Theft of
Vitae for more blood than your opponent in combat has?
4. If you have Anson ready, can you take a blood off either a Protracted
or Short Term Investment and still play a master card, or must you skip
your master phase entirely to get the blood?
5. Can you play "Regaining the Upper Hand" if you already have the edge?
(This came up - someone did it, burned the edge to get a vote, won the
vote, and then played Voter Captivation.)
6. Does anyone else think it is silly that you can have more that one set
of IR goggles on a vampire. A vampire cannot have more than one
vehicle... who ever heard of wearing more than 1 set of IR goggles?
7. Parity Shift says, "Divide up to # of that blood among the
Methuselahs' blood pools as you see fit." Am I correct in assuming you
can direct all of that pool to one Methuselah's pool? It does not say,
as in the Kine Resources Contested, that you must divide "among at least 2
Methuselahs."
8. The Elder Kindred Network says that "Successful vote means there is no
effect." Does this mean that the vote has no effect, or the Elder
Kindred Network has no effect? It seems like an awfully powerful card if
you could automatically make a vote have no effect.
9. Does anyone else think that the Renegade Garou is just way too
powerful? Think: a regenerating ally, with a maneuver. And it's not
unique. This is ridiculous. Even the Muddled Vampire Hunter is unique.
I thought Jyhad was supposed to fix some of the tendencies for games to
be unbalanced that appeared when people played M:tG. But I've seen
someone take over a four player game with ONE Renegade Garou. The only
reason he didn't win was because I had intercept and blocked him when he
tried to recruit two more of them.
10. If use use Vast Wealth and the next equipment to come up is a
vehicle and your vampire already has a vehicle, is the second one burned,
the first, or do you have a choice about which one is burned? And if you
choose to burn the second, or if the second is automatically burned, must
you still pay the pool to equip?
11. When someone else uses Vast Wealth, and you decide to block, must
you declare your block when they announce their intent to use Vast
Wealth, or can you wait and see what they pull out of their library
before you block?
12. Can you put more blood on an uncontrolled vampire than it's
capacity, as long as you remove it at the end of your influence phase?
Example: you use Govern the Unaligned to put 3 blood on a 5 point
vampire, which already had 4 blood on it. Then, during your influence
phase, you spend your transfers to take off 2 blood, and put it in your
pool. Then you bring out the vampire with 5 blood on it.
That's it for now... whew.
Judy
--
____ Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo,
\ /_ flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a
\/ / beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful
\/ painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.
jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) writes:
>I have several questions, and I'm not sure I can remember them all, but
>here they are:>1. Is Read Intentions a "strike: dodge" at the superior auspex level,
>because it just says "dodge" on the card. And if it is not a "strike:
>dodge," does that mean you can do damage that round and still dodge the
>other vampire's strike?
All dodges are strikes.
>2. Why is Army of Rats not cumulative? That is, why doesn't your prey
>take two loss of pool during your untap if you have two Army of Rats?
Because the card says: If successful, Army of Rats is in Play.
While Army of Rats is in play, your Prey loses 1 pool...
So, while multiple actions mmay bring Army of Rats into play,
There will still only be an Army of Rats.
And because Tom have passed along errata to the same effect.
>3. Am I correct in thinking that you cannot Drain Essence or Theft of
>Vitae for more blood than your opponent in combat has?
No, you cannot steal more blood than a Vampire has.
>4. If you have Anson ready, can you take a blood off either a Protracted
>or Short Term Investment and still play a master card, or must you skip
>your master phase entirely to get the blood?
Each master card to be p;layed may be exchanged for the opportunity
to draw blood from one of these cards.
An out-of-turn Master forfiets your entire next Master phase, however.
>5. Can you play "Regaining the Upper Hand" if you already have the edge?
>(This came up - someone did it, burned the edge to get a vote, won the
>vote, and then played Voter Captivation.)
Of course, name yourself, and you will "get" the edge.
(If the vote succeeds, of course - otherwise the edge will remain with you).
>6. Does anyone else think it is silly that you can have more that one set
>of IR goggles on a vampire. A vampire cannot have more than one
>vehicle... who ever heard of wearing more than 1 set of IR goggles?
Yes, but you still can. You can also wear more than 1 flak jacket.
>7. Parity Shift says, "Divide up to # of that blood among the
>Methuselahs' blood pools as you see fit." Am I correct in assuming you
>can direct all of that pool to one Methuselah's pool? It does not say,
>as in the Kine Resources Contested, that you must divide "among at least 2
>Methuselahs."
Sure.
>8. The Elder Kindred Network says that "Successful vote means there is no
>effect." Does this mean that the vote has no effect, or the Elder
>Kindred Network has no effect? It seems like an awfully powerful card if
>you could automatically make a vote have no effect.
??
>9. Does anyone else think that the Renegade Garou is just way too
>powerful? Think: a regenerating ally, with a maneuver. And it's not
>unique. This is ridiculous. Even the Muddled Vampire Hunter is unique.
>I thought Jyhad was supposed to fix some of the tendencies for games to
>be unbalanced that appeared when people played M:tG. But I've seen
>someone take over a four player game with ONE Renegade Garou. The only
>reason he didn't win was because I had intercept and blocked him when he
>tried to recruit two more of them.
??
>10. If use use Vast Wealth and the next equipment to come up is a
>vehicle and your vampire already has a vehicle, is the second one burned,
>the first, or do you have a choice about which one is burned? And if you
>choose to burn the second, or if the second is automatically burned, must
>you still pay the pool to equip?
??
>11. When someone else uses Vast Wealth, and you decide to block, must
>you declare your block when they announce their intent to use Vast
>Wealth, or can you wait and see what they pull out of their library
>before you block?
Wait and see the card before attempting to block.
>12. Can you put more blood on an uncontrolled vampire than it's
>capacity, as long as you remove it at the end of your influence phase?
>Example: you use Govern the Unaligned to put 3 blood on a 5 point
>vampire, which already had 4 blood on it. Then, during your influence
>phase, you spend your transfers to take off 2 blood, and put it in your
>pool. Then you bring out the vampire with 5 blood on it.
No.
In article <3eup7r$3...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh
Hsu) wrote:
> >6. Does anyone else think it is silly that you can have more that one set
> >of IR goggles on a vampire. A vampire cannot have more than one
> >vehicle... who ever heard of wearing more than 1 set of IR goggles?> just as silly as multiple flak jackets
Rather than burden the collector with "Flak Jacket" and "Improved Flak
Jacket" cards (or "IR Goggles" and "Improved IR Goggles"), WotC came up
with a BRILLIANT idea in allowing these cards to be cumulative.
> >9. Does anyone else think that the Renegade Garou is just way too
> >powerful? Think: a regenerating ally, with a maneuver. And it's not
> >unique. This is ridiculous. Even the Muddled Vampire Hunter is unique.
> >I thought Jyhad was supposed to fix some of the tendencies for games to
> >be unbalanced that appeared when people played M:tG. But I've seen
> >someone take over a four player game with ONE Renegade Garou. The only
> >reason he didn't win was because I had intercept and blocked him when he
> >tried to recruit two more of them.> it also costs 5 blood.
> with political actions to remove allies, presence and fortitude cards to steal
> allies etc, I think its pretty fair.
Also, Muddled munches on the Renegade Garou, unless he is out-maneuvered.
Paper, scissors, rock...
>
> >
> >10. If use use Vast Wealth and the next equipment to come up is a
> >vehicle and your vampire already has a vehicle, is the second one burned,
> >the first, or do you have a choice about which one is burned? And if you
> >choose to burn the second, or if the second is automatically burned, must
> >you still pay the pool to equip?
Look at the card. Does it say cannot "use" more than one vehicle or
"have"/"own" more than one vehicle? Use would mean (to me) take your choice
but can't get the effects of both. Own or have would imply possession.
As for paying the pool, etc. Vast Wealth does not seem to give you the
ability to withdraw from the equip action. Besides, why should you care
about burning it -- you're vastly wealthy! :)=
> >11. When someone else uses Vast Wealth, and you decide to block, must
> >you declare your block when they announce their intent to use Vast
> >Wealth, or can you wait and see what they pull out of their library
> >before you block?> the actual action is equiping something, so you can wait till after they pull
> something out, just like when they equip from their hand
> >
I see the action as looking through the library and taking what is there.
You block the action then the result (looking through the library and
getting the card) does not occur. The card would *not* be extracted and
burned (my opinion). There are other examples in which equipment can come
out without the blocker seeing it first, such as Concealed Weapon or
Disguised Weapon.
No matter how your group rules on this one, the same should be applied to
The Magic Smith (or whatever it is called).
> >12. Can you put more blood on an uncontrolled vampire than it's
> >capacity, as long as you remove it at the end of your influence phase?
> >Example: you use Govern the Unaligned to put 3 blood on a 5 point
> >vampire, which already had 4 blood on it. Then, during your influence
> >phase, you spend your transfers to take off 2 blood, and put it in your
> >pool. Then you bring out the vampire with 5 blood on it.
Seems like it violates the rule about not being allowed to keep more blood
than your capacity. For example steal blood allows you to have more blood
than your capacity, but by the end of the combat (or round -- I forget) you
have to discard the excess. Carrying that logic over, I would say that the
excess blood is removed after then action is complete (which is well before
the Influence Phase).
--
Dale Hurtt
dhu...@harris.com
In article <3eutgn$15...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, mbi...@ibm.net wrote:
> >11. When someone else uses Vast Wealth, and you decide to block, must
> >you declare your block when they announce their intent to use Vast
> >Wealth, or can you wait and see what they pull out of their library
> >before you block?
>> You can't block the use of Vast Wealth, as it's a Master Card, but you can block
> the equip action if you have the intercept.
>
Ummmm, I think you are thinking of something else. Vast Wealth *is* a
Master card, so when it is played it can only be stopped by Suuden
Reversal. However, once Vast Wealth is *in* play, the card specifically
states that it allows you to take an action *at +1 Stealth* to look through
your library, pull out a piece of equipment, and place it on the vastly
wealthy vampire (after paying the pool cost). This is a permanent ability
added to the minion, not a 1-shot-and-discard card. The action *can* be
intercepted.
However, as I stated in another response, I believe (i.e. my opinion) the
action is to look through the library, therefore if the action is blocked a
card is *not* pulled out; an action's results are never assessed until
after it has been determined that the action has not been blocked.
--
Dale Hurtt
dhu...@harris.com
In <dhurtt-12...@m15t.ess.harris.com>, dhu...@ic1d.harris.com (Dale Hurtt) writes:
>However, as I stated in another response, I believe (i.e. my opinion) the
>action is to look through the library, therefore if the action is blocked a
>card is *not* pulled out; an action's results are never assessed until
>after it has been determined that the action has not been blocked.
"... The minion can now equip (with the first piece of equipment you find in
your library, working down from the top,) as an action, which would be at +1
stealth." [() mine]
This is how I read the card. The equip action is at +1 stealth. It is the only
minion action allowed by the card. The card also allows the Methuselah to look
through his/her deck to get an equipment card to use in the equip action.
Therefore, you can't block the Methuselah from getting the card (and reshuffling),
but you *can* block the equip action if you have the intercept to do so.
>Dale Hurtt
>dhu...@harris.com
Vincent, Elder of Minneapolis
In <dhurtt-12...@m15t.ess.harris.com>, dhu...@ic1d.harris.com (Dale Hurtt) writes:
>> >10. If use use Vast Wealth and the next equipment to come up is a
>> >vehicle and your vampire already has a vehicle, is the second one burned,
>> >the first, or do you have a choice about which one is burned? And if you
>> >choose to burn the second, or if the second is automatically burned, must
>> >you still pay the pool to equip?>
>Look at the card. Does it say cannot "use" more than one vehicle or
>"have"/"own" more than one vehicle? Use would mean (to me) take your choice
>but can't get the effects of both. Own or have would imply possession.
The vehicle cards say "have."
>As for paying the pool, etc. Vast Wealth does not seem to give you the
>ability to withdraw from the equip action. Besides, why should you care
>about burning it -- you're vastly wealthy! :)=
The wording is "can equip" not "must equip." Therefore, the action is optional.
>> >11. When someone else uses Vast Wealth, and you decide to block, must
>> >you declare your block when they announce their intent to use Vast
>> >Wealth, or can you wait and see what they pull out of their library
>> >before you block?>>No matter how your group rules on this one, the same should be applied to
>The Magic Smith (or whatever it is called).
Magic of the Smith is an *Action* card. Therefore you can block the *Action*
inherent in its being an *Action* card. Vast Wealth is a *Master* card and
allows you to get a piece of equipment which you can then use in an equip
*action* at +1 stealth. I don't see how you can say that looking through the
library is a minion action and therefore blockable.
>> >12. Can you put more blood on an uncontrolled vampire than it's
>> >capacity, as long as you remove it at the end of your influence phase?
>> >Example: you use Govern the Unaligned to put 3 blood on a 5 point
>> >vampire, which already had 4 blood on it. Then, during your influence
>> >phase, you spend your transfers to take off 2 blood, and put it in your
>> >pool. Then you bring out the vampire with 5 blood on it.>
>Seems like it violates the rule about not being allowed to keep more blood
>than your capacity. For example steal blood allows you to have more blood
>than your capacity, but by the end of the combat (or round -- I forget) you
No, the wording is turn, not combat. "If the amount stolen exceeds the stealing
vampire's capacity, the excess is kept on the vampire until the end of the turn
and then put in the bank."
>have to discard the excess. Carrying that logic over, I would say that the
>excess blood is removed after then action is complete (which is well before
>the Influence Phase).
Carrying that logic over (mine, above), her idea is quite legal and, indeed,
a most wonderful idea at that.
[ quoted text not captured ]