"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes:
>Greetings to you all!
Welcome aboard!
Are you to be addressed as Shawn or Swack?
>Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Shawn F. Carnes, and I have
taken over the
>responsibilities of NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad. I am a Game
>Designer/Developer here at WotC, specifically working on V:TES (Jyhad) and
Netrunner. I
>used to work in Customer Service (that's where I started over two years
ago). I am also
>the designer (along with Paul Peterson and Matt Burke) of Dark
Sovereigns, Ancient
>Hearts, and the soon to come Sabbat.
>Anyway, if there is anything I can do to make your stay in this newsgroup
a more
>enjoyable one, gimme a shout (BUT NOT LIKE THIS). :)
80-column posts would help - I normally don't force myself to scan unweildly
posts, but cannot afford that luxury if I am to archive your rulings.
Probably need to delete a few lines from your .sig, if you want to hand out
official rulings :-)
>*************************************************************************
>* The opinions I express are mine, not Wizards of the Coast's. *
>*************************************************************************
----
Questions pending from Tom's reign:
[This first one seems to have been answered in the latest RTR, but with
the exception that "Non-Camarilla" is a function of clan, not of card text.
If that is the case, could you also explain why "Non-Camarilla" is a
function of clan, but "Cannot commit diablerie" is a function of card text?]
Subject: Re: Assamites, diablerie, and changing clans
Date: 1996/06/20
Message-Id: <4qbfuk$8...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>I believe we decided that it wasn't worth it to...
>1) allow ex-Assamites to commit diablerie
>2) prohibit vampires who become Assamites from committing diablerie
>3) prohibit Progeny, etc. of Assamites from committing diablerie
>But I am going to have to double check on that.
Card text above all. That should simplify things, although some of it
will run far from the game-world "reality".
For instance, an Assamite (or other Vampire with the 'Non-Cam' card
text) who impersonates a "Camarilla" clan will still be considered a
Non-Camarilla vampire (unless he also has a Writ of Acceptance or has
received the benefit of an acceptance vote /called prior to
impersonation/ - since it won't benefit him after impersonation).
Similarly, a vampire who doesn't have the "Non-Camarilla" text can
impersonate a Non-Camarilla clan, and still be an camarilla.
Similarly, a Justicar of Clan1 who impersonates Clan2 will still be
the Clan1 Justicar (by card text).
Any mis-interpretations so far, TOM?
(I personally think this is the best way to go - having game-world
concept override card text may make sense some of the time, but will
eventually lead to far more headaches than it is worth).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Riposte question
Date: 1996/06/26
Message-Id: <4qr8qc$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
>>OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue)
>> the Toreador plays a "Riposte"
>> the blue blood playes a "Majesty"
>>Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood?
>I'd guess "yes", since the damage from riposte is somehow (not yet
>explained) granted immunity from the termination of the strike
>resolution phase (as caused by Riposte). It must, therefore, be
>immune to further terminations of the strike resolution phase.
S:CE resolves before any other type of strike, but precedence
is never given to the acting minion's strike resolution, only
to the acting minion's strike declaration.
The section (page 30 in the V:tES rulebook) is a reworking
of the rules attempting to clarify the earlier mis-rule from
Jyhad - that the blocker doesn't announce a strike if the
acting minion plays a S:CE.
Is it the intention of pg. 30 in the V:tES rulebook to make the
acting minion's strike resolve first (or can we have a little
errata to remedy the loophole)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Ferryman; to be or not to be Giovanni?
Date: 1996/06/27
Message-Id: <4qu1l5$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
refp...@best.com (Rory) writes:
>On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:08:02 GMT, fe...@hearth.ultranet.com (Mark
>Amidon) wrote:
>>I
>>Hardly! Look at the most common Giovanni retainer, the Zombie. With three or
>>two Pathos counters on him, the Zombie adds 1 damage per round of close
>>combat, and when he gets down to one Pathos counter, the vampire with the
>>Zombie burns him for two blood! Then the Ferryman brings him back!
>Actually the card does not go into your ash heap but out of the game
>and so nothing can bring it back anymore.
He is only removed from the game when he has *no* Pathos counters on
him. If you use the Zombie's own special ability (burn him to give
the employing vampire two blood) before the third Pathos counter is
removed, then the Zombie goes to the ash heap (and all Pathos Counters
fall off and are forgotten).
The point of contention here is whether or not the Wraith's ability
still applies if the target Retainer returns to the ash heap (i.e.,
would the Retainer who lost all his Pathos counters by going to the
ash heap still be bound by other game effects?). I'd say the Zombie
is free because he is out of play (in the ash heap) by the time he
loses his Pathos counters, and therefore not governed by card text
not expressly directed at ash-heap cards.
TOM?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Q: [TOM] New Rotschreck Ruling
Date: 1996/07/01
Message-Id: <4r90r1$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Robert Goudie <Robert...@studio.disney.com> writes:
>From the most recent list of errata:
>Rotschreck - Master Out-Of-Turn:
>Should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to inflict
>aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor. During
>the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of
>untapping the vampire." [RTR]
>Is played when strikes are chosen, not during resolution. [TOM 960521]
>!NEW!
>*****
>When strikes are chosen? So am I correct in understanding that a
>Rotschreck can be played against a burst of sunlight strike or a hand
>strike modified from a Dawn Operation or a hand strike that was
>modified via a Wolf Claws BEFORE strikes were chosen, but that it CANNOT
>be used when a hand strike is modified via Wolf Claws during strike
>resolution?
Wolf Claws must be used *before* strike resolution (i.e., at the last
moments of the strike announcement phase) in order to be applied to the
strike. So, while Rotschreck couldn't be used if you wait 'til strike
resolution to play claws, it won't matter, because the claws won't turn the
damage of the strike being resolved into aggravated damage.
<begin soapbox>
A better question would be "Can you play Rotscheck on a gun strike
that is modified by Dragon's Breath Rounds?" (since ammo cards *are*
played during strike resolution, by card text.) For some reason the
Rules Team chose to make the Claws resolve differently from the ammo
modifiers, even though the ammo timing is cleaner and easier to
follow. At the time, this was done in an attempt to avoid dividing the
strike resolution phase into 'apply strike effects' and 'heal damage'.
Such a division would simplify all of the above without introducing
any new rulings nor timing issues, and actually makes sense from a
game mechanics POV.
The question that caused the poor ruling from the Design Team on the
timing of Claws was "Can I play claws after playing a damage-prevention
card?" Naturally, this should be disallowed to avoid "slap" situations.
By cleanly separating the 'apply strike' from the 'heal/prevent damage'
activity, the desired result is acheived.
<end soapbox>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Alexandra
Date: 1996/07/05
Message-Id: <4rj2k6$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
gaus...@uiuc.edu (David Gausebeck) writes:
>>Well, qouting from the DS errata:
>>
>>DSE> Alexandra [DS] - Vampire (Tor) (11):
>>DSE> Can use her untap ability at any point during the minion phase,
>>DSE> including during a poilitical action. [TOM 960214]
>*sigh*
>That's what I was afraid of.
Don't be disheartened - the ruling says that she may do here thing
even during a political action. It doesn't deny the possibility of
doing her thing at other times during the turn (i.e., it is missing
the "only" modifier to "during the minion phase").
The ruling doesn't deny the "I bring out Alexandra and she untaps Anson"
effect (though the rules team may (in the future) add the "only" modifier
here, as they are want to do everywhere else :-).
------
Subject: Re: Alexandra
Date: 1996/07/05
Message-Id: <4rjpv3$a...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Timo...@mail.airmail.net (Timothy Coffman) writes:
>In article <4rj2k6$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
>Scott Johnson) wrote:
>>gaus...@uiuc.edu (David Gausebeck) writes:
>>>>Well, qouting from the DS errata:
>>>>
>>>>DSE> Alexandra [DS] - Vampire (Tor) (11):
>>>>DSE> Can use her untap ability at any point during the minion phase,
>>>>DSE> including during a poilitical action. [TOM 960214]
>>
>>Don't be disheartened - the ruling says that she may do here thing
>>even during a political action. It doesn't deny the possibility of
>>doing her thing at other times during the turn (i.e., it is missing
>>the "only" modifier to "during the minion phase").
>>
>>The ruling doesn't deny the "I bring out Alexandra and she untaps Anson"
>>effect (though the rules team may (in the future) add the "only" modifier
>>here, as they are want to do everywhere else :-).
>I may be misunderstanding, but I think it clearly disallows that since you
>bring Alexandra out during influence phase.
Yes, you bring her out in the Influence phase.
And, yes, you can use her ability during a political action.
And, no, that doesn't restrict her use during the Influence phase.
Because, as I said, it has nowhere been said that you can "only" use her
ability during your minion phase.
It has been said that you "can" use her ability at that time, but her use
isn't *restricted* to *only* that time.
(Similarly, that you can burn the edge for a vote during your turn does
*not* "clearly disallow" burning the edge when it is not your turn.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: TOM: Q: DS: Anathema
Date: 1996/07/08
Message-Id: <4rr13k$3...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
If the target of a successful Anathema vote is in combat, and
chooses a strike which costs him his last blood, is he burned
immediately upon paying for the strike, or is he only burned
when the combat is over (or immediately after the strike
resolves)?
More thoughts:
If the target is at zero blood before combat (and has his hunt
blocked, for example), does Anathema apply (since the target
isn't reduced to zero "due to combat")?
If the target spends his last blood *before* combat (either by
burning blood to block Donal or a Cam. Exemplary, or by spending
X blood for X maneuvers via the Ruins of Villars Abbey), and is
therfore not reduced to zero during combat (but rather, remains at
zero and is possibly sent to torpor or burned), does the opposing
minion get Anathema credit for the reduction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to announce your presence - I wish I'd known
there was going to be an absense this past month - I wouldn't have bothered
asking all of these questions to the walls :-)
And, again, welcome.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | In theory there is no difference
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | between theory and practice.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |