"Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these
cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the
play of the card. The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for
example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss
of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of
1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of
a given capacity). The ally is treated as a vampire only when playing the
card and, for cards such as actions and strikes that are not resolved
immediately, for the resolution of the effect. In particular, the ally is
not treated as a vampire for effects of the card once it's in play or for
lingering effects generated by the card. If the ally gains life in excess of
his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated
damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would
send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead. "
Does this mean that now aggravated damage to, say, Rafastio Ghouls, will be
treated as normal ?
Do I also understand correctly the "does not drain off" part, meaning that
Akhenaten at full capacity could actually gain lives with Summon Soul ?
"Default bleed and strength for both vampires and allies is 1 (allies used
to default to 0)."
Does this mean that all allies with a "0 bleed" cardtext now bleed at one,
or that new allies without any precision regarding their bleed bleed at one
?
Orpheus, glad he came unto the modified page a few minutes after it was
updated... :-)
Orpheus wrote:
>
> "Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these
> cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the
> play of the card. The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for
> example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss
> of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of
> 1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of
> a given capacity). The ally is treated as a vampire only when playing the
> card and, for cards such as actions and strikes that are not resolved
> immediately, for the resolution of the effect. In particular, the ally is
> not treated as a vampire for effects of the card once it's in play or for
> lingering effects generated by the card. If the ally gains life in excess of
> his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated
> damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would
> send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead. "
>
> Does this mean that now aggravated damage to, say, Rafastio Ghouls, will be
> treated as normal ?
If "as normal" means "burns a life", then yeah. If "as normal" means "as
if it were non-agg", then no. If an ally who is immune to non-agg damage
inflicts agg damage on himself "as a vampire", he still burns a life for
each point of agg damage, just like allies normally do.
> Do I also understand correctly the "does not drain off" part, meaning that
> Akhenaten at full capacity could actually gain lives with Summon Soul ?
Yes. This is how it has always been.
> "Default bleed and strength for both vampires and allies is 1 (allies used
> to default to 0)."
>
> Does this mean that all allies with a "0 bleed" cardtext now bleed at one,
> or that new allies without any precision regarding their bleed bleed at one
> ?
Card text overrides rules, as always.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:29:39 +0200, "Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>"Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these
>cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the
>play of the card. The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for
>example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss
>of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of
>1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of
>a given capacity). The ally is treated as a vampire only when playing the
>card and, for cards such as actions and strikes that are not resolved
>immediately, for the resolution of the effect. In particular, the ally is
>not treated as a vampire for effects of the card once it's in play or for
>lingering effects generated by the card. If the ally gains life in excess of
>his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated
>damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would
>send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead. "
>
>Does this mean that now aggravated damage to, say, Rafastio Ghouls, will be
>treated as normal ?
LSJ, which is the proper scenario?
1) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight and cannot prevent the agg
damage from it's own strike (being played as a vampire), the Ghoul burns
(Ghoul cannot go to torpor)
2) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight, so the ghoul burns a
blood from his BoS. By treating agg as normal damage (when applied to
an ally) as the strike does not resolve immediately.
>Do I also understand correctly the "does not drain off" part, meaning that
>Akhenaten at full capacity could actually gain lives with Summon Soul ?
>
>"Default bleed and strength for both vampires and allies is 1 (allies used
>to default to 0)."
>
>Does this mean that all allies with a "0 bleed" cardtext now bleed at one,
>or that new allies without any precision regarding their bleed bleed at one
>?
>
>Orpheus, glad he came unto the modified page a few minutes after it was
>updated... :-)
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:29:39 +0200, "Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
> >if the effect inflicts aggravated
> >damage on the ally, he burns life as normal.
>> LSJ, which is the proper scenario?
>
> 1) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight and cannot prevent the agg
> damage from it's own strike (being played as a vampire), the Ghoul burns
> (Ghoul cannot go to torpor)
>
> 2) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight, so the ghoul burns a> [life] from his BoS. By treating agg as normal damage (when applied to> an ally) as the strike does not resolve immediately.
3) Like 2) except without the "as normal damage" part. The damage is
still treated as aggravated damage - the ally burns a life for it as
normal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > Does this mean that now aggravated damage to, say, Rafastio Ghouls, will
be
> > treated as normal ?
>
> If "as normal" means "burns a life", then yeah. If "as normal" means "as
> if it were non-agg", then no. If an ally who is immune to non-agg damage
> inflicts agg damage on himself "as a vampire", he still burns a life for
> each point of agg damage, just like allies normally do.
And what if, "as a vampire", an ally plays Ex Nihiloand then plays a (not
"many anymore") Weather Control (hello Reyda !) ? Does he take damage from
the WC ?
> > Do I also understand correctly the "does not drain off" part, meaning
that
> > Akhenaten at full capacity could actually gain lives with Summon Soul ?
>
> Yes. This is how it has always been.
Enormous !!!
> > "Default bleed and strength for both vampires and allies is 1 (allies
used
> > to default to 0)."
> >
> > Does this mean that all allies with a "0 bleed" cardtext now bleed at
one,
> > or that new allies without any precision regarding their bleed bleed at
one
> > ?
>
> Card text overrides rules, as always.
Ok, then I don't see yet the use for this rule, except if some new allies
have no bleed indicated, or if some cars speak of the "default bleed" ;
we'll see...
>> 2) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight, so the ghoul burns a
>> [life] from his BoS. By treating agg as normal damage (when applied
>> to an ally) as the strike does not resolve immediately.> 3) Like 2) except without the "as normal damage" part. The damage is
> still treated as aggravated damage - the ally burns a life for it as
> normal.
So would that cause the Rafastio Ghoul to go to torpor (and therefor burn)?
Sorrow
---
"...but you know, evil is an exact science..."
>So would that cause the Rafastio Ghoul to go to torpor (and therefor burn)?
No. When an ally takes aggrivated damage, all you do is burn the blood. They
don't go to torpor. What the new rule on torpor is referring to are things that
send minions straight to torpor.
Ally #1 takes 2 agg - burns two blood
Vampire #1 takes 2 agg - burns a blood and goes to torpor
Vampire #2 is sent to torpor specifically from a card - goes to torpor
Ally #2 is sent to torpor specifically from a a card - *ash*
That help? :-)
Robert M. Sachs
V:EKN Prince of Naperville, IL
Assistant Storyteller, College of DuPage by Night
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes
"Who controls the past now,
controls the future.
Who controls the present now,
controls the past." ~ Zach de la Roch
Orpheus wrote:
> And what if, "as a vampire", an ally plays Ex Nihiloand then plays a (not
> "many anymore") Weather Control (hello Reyda !) ? Does he take damage from
> the WC ?
ExN doesn't do anything for the ally except cost him a life to play, as always.
> > Card text overrides rules, as always.
>
> Ok, then I don't see yet the use for this rule, except if some new allies
> have no bleed indicated, or if some cars speak of the "default bleed" ;
> we'll see...
Uniformity is a reason.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorrow wrote:
>
> >> 2) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight, so the ghoul burns a
> >> [life] from his BoS. By treating agg as normal damage (when applied
> >> to an ally) as the strike does not resolve immediately.
> > 3) Like 2) except without the "as normal damage" part. The damage is
> > still treated as aggravated damage - the ally burns a life for it as
> > normal.
>
> So would that cause the Rafastio Ghoul to go to torpor (and therefor burn)?
No. As repeatedly stated: the ally burns life as normal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> So would that cause the Rafastio Ghoul to go to torpor (and therefor
>> burn)?> No. As repeatedly stated: the ally burns life as normal.
I just wanted to be absolutely certain because this new rule essentially
reverses the ruling that was made in May regarding the same issue. It
didn't make sense that that was the case and so is why I wanted to be
sure.
Sorrow
---
"Are they dead?" - Pugsly
"Does it matter?" - Wednesday
LSJ wrote:
:: Orpheus wrote:::: And what if, "as a vampire", an ally plays Ex Nihiloand then plays
::: a (not "many anymore") Weather Control (hello Reyda !) ? Does he
::: take damage from the WC ?
Hellloooo... I have 27 Weather control to trade... Also 5 Ex nihilo under my
cupboard now ;)
:: ExN doesn't do anything for the ally except cost him a life to play,
:: as always.
Yes, this is consistency, and we old players all love consistency ;)
:::: Card text overrides rules, as always.:::
::: Ok, then I don't see yet the use for this rule, except if some new
::: allies have no bleed indicated, or if some cars speak of the
::: "default bleed" ; we'll see...::
:: Uniformity is a reason.
Yes, and we old players all love uniformity, when it comes to the rules
matter.
anyway, i was first shocked when i saw the new rules, already thinking about
an Arms Dealer Horde, with brujah weenies & summonings to have an army ready
in a few turns ;)
but now i feel better !
reyda
Orpheus wrote:
> "Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these
> cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the
> play of the card. The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for
> example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss
> of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of
> 1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of
> a given capacity). The ally is treated as a vampire only when playing the
> card and, for cards such as actions and strikes that are not resolved
> immediately, for the resolution of the effect. In particular, the ally is
> not treated as a vampire for effects of the card once it's in play or for
> lingering effects generated by the card. If the ally gains life in excess of
> his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated
> damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would
> send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead. "
>
So, if I get it correctly, The Herald can call a referendum via Charming
Lobby, and use Voter Captivation to gain life in excess of his capacity ?
Francois
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3D32F7C2...@white-wolf.com...
> Sorrow wrote:
> >
> > >> 2) If a Rafastio Ghoul uses Burst of Sunlight, so the ghoul burns a
> > >> [life] from his BoS. By treating agg as normal damage (when applied
> > >> to an ally) as the strike does not resolve immediately.
> > > 3) Like 2) except without the "as normal damage" part. The damage is
> > > still treated as aggravated damage - the ally burns a life for it as
> > > normal.
> >
> > So would that cause the Rafastio Ghoul to go to torpor (and therefor
burn)?
>
> No. As repeatedly stated: the ally burns life as normal.
Basically, all this effects is some ally playing mumify or some other "go to
torpor" effect...they will now burn instead of getting stuck. (GREAT)
And the Rafastios will now just take their own burst of sunlight. But no
funky torpor rule. Also good!
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
>For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of
>1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of
>a given capacity).
I take it that card text overrules the default 1 capacity? And AFAIK, all
allies that can currently play discipline cards already have a capacity listed
(so I guess the default is for some hypothetical weird cornercase?).
I'm also a bit confused by the default bleed and strength of 1 for allies. Once
again I take it that card text overrules this. If so, then the only real change
I can think of is actually giving R damage allies 1 strength - Rom Gypsy, The
Slashers, and various Mages (Outcast, Nephandus, Thadius, Tara, Talaq, Order of
Hermes). So now they can actually do some damage when caught at close and
grappled! Is there anything else I'm missing? Cause all other allies AFAIK have
a bleed and strength listed (even if it's 0). Some people have hypothesized
that many of these older cards will be boosted (Arms Dealers now bleed for 1)
but I think current card text (bleed for 0) would override the default. Anyway,
it would potentially overpower some allies and lead to some weird situations.
(Shambling Hordes would then have 4 or 5 strength instead of 3 or 4. And
Vagabond Mystics having 1 strength and 1 bleed???).
Any other thoughts or comments?
Halcyan 2
Francois Gombault wrote:
> So, if I get it correctly, The Herald can call a referendum via Charming
> Lobby, and use Voter Captivation to gain life in excess of his capacity ?
Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> >For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of
> >1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of
> >a given capacity).
>
> I take it that card text overrules the default 1 capacity? And AFAIK, all
> allies that can currently play discipline cards already have a capacity listed
> (so I guess the default is for some hypothetical weird cornercase?).
>
> I'm also a bit confused by the default bleed and strength of 1 for allies. Once
> again I take it that card text overrules this. If so, then the only real change
> I can think of is actually giving R damage allies 1 strength - Rom Gypsy, The
> Slashers, and various Mages (Outcast, Nephandus, Thadius, Tara, Talaq, Order of
> Hermes). So now they can actually do some damage when caught at close and
> grappled! Is there anything else I'm missing? Cause all other allies AFAIK have
This helps determine what a "normal strike" is. Since everything defaults to
strength 1, a "normal" Meat Cleaver strike does 2.
It also helps for judge headaches with Grandest Trick.
> a bleed and strength listed (even if it's 0). Some people have hypothesized
> that many of these older cards will be boosted (Arms Dealers now bleed for 1)
> but I think current card text (bleed for 0) would override the default.
Correct. Card text overrides the default.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Francois Gombault wrote:
>>>So, if I get it correctly, The Herald can call a referendum via Charming
>>Lobby, and use Voter Captivation to gain life in excess of his capacity ?>
> Correct.
If the vote called this way is The Final Nights, does the Herald burn 1
blood (loose 1 life) as any vampire would ?
I mean, is the result of the referendum called by Charming Lobby an
"effect generated by the play of the card" ?
Francois
> Correct. Card text overrides the default.
Just to clarify, the Nephandus still bleeds for one and the Political
allie still bleeds for three? While a Garou now bleeds for one?
Correct?
Thanks.
Pc.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D3376DF...@white-wolf.com>...
> Francois Gombault wrote:
> > So, if I get it correctly, The Herald can call a referendum via Charming
> > Lobby, and use Voter Captivation to gain life in excess of his capacity ?
>
> Correct.
Thus allowing interesting Charming Lobby - Vote X - Awe - Bewitching
Oration effects of ever increasing power.
Thought pool stacked for votes on Alamut? The Herald, now that guy can
vote!
1st vote passes by a margin of 5... second vote passes by a margin of
10... third vote passes by a margin of 15...
Tobias
Deventer
[ quoted text not captured ]
No, card text overrides the rules. If there was an ally that was
missing text specifying it's bleed, it would be 1. Since Garou
specifies that it has a bleed of 0, it has a bleed of 0.
Sorrow
---
"Happiness sucks" -me
>> No, card text overrides the rules. If there was an ally that was
>> missing text specifying it's bleed, it would be 1. Since Garou
>> specifies that it has a bleed of 0, it has a bleed of 0.> Correct.> Nephandus's card text: "1 bleed"
> Political Ally's card text: "3 bleed"
> Renegade Garou's card text: "0 bleed"
Are any allies currently in print affected by this rule, then?
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:>>
>> >> No, card text overrides the rules. If there was an ally that was
>> >> missing text specifying it's bleed, it would be 1. Since Garou
>> >> specifies that it has a bleed of 0, it has a bleed of 0.
>>
>> > Correct.
>>
>> > Nephandus's card text: "1 bleed"
>> > Political Ally's card text: "3 bleed"
>> > Renegade Garou's card text: "0 bleed"
>>
>> Are any allies currently in print affected by this rule, then?> Not if they have card text that override the default.
Yes, but I was asking if there were any who didn't, specifically.
Wondering if this is a rule for future reference and card real estate
saving, or if it affects any cards currently in print pre-CE. I don't
know what every ally's card text looks like offhand, so I was asking
if someone out there might know. I can't think of any allies who do
not have their "bleed" specifically printed; are there any?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> Yes, but I was asking if there were any who didn't, specifically.
> Wondering if this is a rule for future reference and card real estate
> saving, or if it affects any cards currently in print pre-CE. I don't
> know what every ally's card text looks like offhand, so I was asking
> if someone out there might know. I can't think of any allies who do
> not have their "bleed" specifically printed; are there any?
You might try the library monger
http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/library.html
and search for cardtype "ally"
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Tobias" <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8aa6db00.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Thus allowing interesting Charming Lobby - Vote X - Awe - Bewitching
> Oration effects of ever increasing power.
>
> Thought pool stacked for votes on Alamut? The Herald, now that guy can
> vote!
>
> 1st vote passes by a margin of 5... second vote passes by a margin of
> 10... third vote passes by a margin of 15...
If the first one passes at all.
And, you (or someone) has to be using the auto-pass Charming
Lobby result for another (non-Herald) vote, or the Herald
won't be able to Awe/Bewitch/Voter Cap anymore.
And you have to bring out a Baali and recruit the Herald
before you can start doing any of this.
And it's not that great an effect anyway. Passing one or two
votes a turn at one stealth, assuming there aren't too many
opposing voters the first time you try it? Oooh, scary.
But it's funny, yes. ;-)
Josh
and you can't even minion tap the herald...
In message <GUCY8.382$7t.3...@newshog.newsread.com>, Sorrow
<jcb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I just wanted to be absolutely certain because this new rule essentially
>reverses the ruling that was made in May regarding the same issue. It
>didn't make sense that that was the case and so is why I wanted to be
>sure.
It's worth pointing out that the May ruling was essentially a way of
trying to shoe-horn everything in with the current rules set.
The current rules set (then) didn't allow for the stuff that the new
rule will.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D