This strangeness could equally apply to the Sengir dagger however it happened
in a game with the Ivory Bow so I'll use that as the example.
Player X blocked player Y who had an Ivory bow. Player X played destroy
equipment with first strike.
Player Y said although he couldn't use the bow, as it had been
destroyed, he had intended to use it as his strike. (Can anyone guess
what comes next?)
Player Y then played Rotshreck and caused Player X to go into torpor.
I suppose this outcome all hinges on how you read the Rotshreck card
and if the mere presence of the bow in the hand of the attacking Vampire
is enough to frighten the defender sufficiently to send him into torpor.
We are waiting for an official ruling on this one but in the meantime
what do you think?
Clarendon.
Mark Parker (clar...@crom.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Player X blocked player Y who had an Ivory bow. Player X played destroy
: equipment with first strike.: Player Y said although he couldn't use the bow, as it had been
: destroyed, he had intended to use it as his strike. (Can anyone guess
: what comes next?): Player Y then played Rotshreck and caused Player X to go into torpor.
First of all, you obviously missed the recent Ruling reversal by the
Design team - Rotschreck now affects the vampire *DEALING* the aggravated
damage, so it is unlikely that player Y would have wanted to play it on
himself.
Even if the old ruling were still in effect, however, the situation can be
worked out if you play the combat through without missing any steps.
Y: "I (perform action)"
X: "I block"
Block is successful - enter combat. Y, as acting minion, declares
everything first.
Y: "No pre-maneuver cards"
X: "No pre-maneuver cards"
Y: "Range - close"
X: "Close."
Y: "Strike - Ivory Bow"
X: (Plays card, I assume) "Destroy Equipment with first strike"
Y: "Damn!"
Strike resolution phase comes around - First strike goes first and destroys
the Ivory Bow. Player Y cannot make the strike he said he wanted to as
the equipment is gone, so (my interpretation here) he cannot do anything
since you cannot change your strike after you have declared it. Combat
ends with no damage to anyone, (assuming no presses).
(Had Player X been the agressor, then he would have had to declare his
destruction of the Ivory Bow before player Y declared his strike, so at
least Y would have had a chance to Dodge or at the very least declare a
strike:hands for a point of damage.)
Since no damage was done in the 'Resolve Strike' phase of the combat,
then obviously no aggravated damage was done, and the Rotschreck (IMHO)
could not have been played.
Shane Travis | Due to circumstances beyond my control,
sht...@duke.usask.ca | I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Shane Hamish William Travis wrote:
>Mark Parker (clar...@crom.demon.co.uk) wrote:>: Player X blocked player Y who had an Ivory bow. Player X played
destroy
>: equipment with first strike.>: Player Y said although he couldn't use the bow, as it had been
>: destroyed, he had intended to use it as his strike. (Can anyone guess
>: what comes next?)>: Player Y then played Rotshreck and caused Player X to go into torpor.>First of all, you obviously missed the recent Ruling reversal by the
>Design team - Rotschreck now affects the vampire *DEALING* the aggravated>damage, so it is unlikely that player Y would have wanted to play it on
>himself.
A player in one of my Jyhad groups is very given to Gangrel and was
(unsurprisingly) ticked off at this ruling. He called customer support
and said (I'm paraphrasing) "You mean every time Basilia (who does
inherently agrravated hand damage) strikes, she runs the risk of running
in terror from her OWN claws?"
The rep said "Let me check with the rules team on that".
A short time later he came back and said "The rules team agrees with you.
Rotschreck has to affect the vampire receiving the damage."
So we may soon see another (Sudden?) reversal.
The card says it takes effect when a vampire attempts to use aggravated
damage, not when a vampire receives aggravated damage, so my take is that
player Y is right. He's still attempting an Ivory Bow strike until the
first strike damage resolution phase.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>>First of all, you obviously missed the recent Ruling reversal by the
>>Design team - Rotschreck now affects the vampire *DEALING* the aggravated>>damage, so it is unlikely that player Y would have wanted to play it on
>>himself.>A player in one of my Jyhad groups is very given to Gangrel and was
>(unsurprisingly) ticked off at this ruling. He called customer support
>and said (I'm paraphrasing) "You mean every time Basilia (who does
>inherently agrravated hand damage) strikes, she runs the risk of running
>in terror from her OWN claws?">The rep said "Let me check with the rules team on that".>A short time later he came back and said "The rules team agrees with you.
>Rotschreck has to affect the vampire receiving the damage.">So we may soon see another (Sudden?) reversal.
I'd like to deal some aggravated damage to the Design Team >:->
>The card says it takes effect when a vampire attempts to use aggravated
>damage, not when a vampire receives aggravated damage, so my take is that
>player Y is right. He's still attempting an Ivory Bow strike until the
>first strike damage resolution phase.
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
The card text is atrocious (as usual), and can be easily interpretted as
you say. I would submit, however, that announcing a strike is not yet the
attempt. When the strike is resolved, (and it would not be in this case,
having no weapon to use), then the attempt is made. Even if dodged, the
attempt would have been made.
If strike: End Combat or First Strike: Steal/Destroy equipment, then the
"attempt" never materializes.
The intent is there, but the attempt is not.
Again, just another way to interpret the thing, and one that I think is
closer to the concept of the card (assuming it affects the Vamp
*dealing* aggravated damage, as it should (cf: Tom's explanation of
the concept of Rotscreck: a Meth. confronts the dealer with the horror of
what aggravated damage is, sending him (the dealer) cowering)).
L. Scott Johnson
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:: >The card says it takes effect when a vampire attempts to use aggravated: >damage, not when a vampire receives aggravated damage, so my take is that
: >player Y is right. He's still attempting an Ivory Bow strike until the
: >first strike damage resolution phase.
: >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com): The card text is atrocious (as usual), and can be easily interpretted as
: you say. I would submit, however, that announcing a strike is not yet the
: attempt. When the strike is resolved, (and it would not be in this case,
: having no weapon to use), then the attempt is made. Even if dodged, the
: attempt would have been made.
I would agree with this interpretation, especially as it says:
"Play when any minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
vampire, whether successfully or not."
The last part of that clause seems to indicate that it has to get all the
way to the stike resolution phase, where the damage can be dodged,
absorbed by a flak jacket/skin of steel/unflinching persistence/etc. and
therefore be 'unsuccessful'. If the announcement of the intent to do
aggravated damage was enough, then I hope (but doubt) that WotC would
have said "Play immediately when a vampire declares a strike which deals
aggravated damage."
: Again, just another way to interpret the thing, and one that I think is: closer to the concept of the card (assuming it affects the Vamp
: *dealing* aggravated damage, as it should (cf: Tom's explanation of
: the concept of Rotscreck: a Meth. confronts the dealer with the horror of
: what aggravated damage is, sending him (the dealer) cowering)).
I had not seen this explanation before (came upon the ruling weeks after
it had been made) but I like it, and it make some sort of sense. Strict
reading of the card would seem to indicate that it should be played the
same way as it was originally ruled (note the usage of minion and
vampire) but this makes no sense IMHO.
(old way)
without Rotschreck: take agg damage, go to torpor, untap next turn.
with Rotschreck: don't take agg dam, but go to torpor anyway and *don't*
untap next turn.
It would only make sense to play this card then when I was about to be
burned by agg damage (which, while nasty, does not happen as often as the
simple inflicting of agg damage does.)
I like the new ruling. (But then again, I play Ventrue/Toreador... :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Another interpretation... When you destroy equipment with first strike,
does that mean you destroy their equipment as a first strike, or does it
mean that you can destroy equpiment the has first strike. I always
though that if a piece of equipment was stolen/destroyed, you could still
strike with it once. I think that "destroy equipment with first strike",
allows you to destroy equipment that has first strike, not destroy their
equip-ment as a first strike. What's the deal???
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ted Cabeen cab...@netcom.com
Finger for PGP Public Key 7312...@compuserve.com
"Be Yourself" cococ...@aol.com
cab...@netcom.com (Ted Cabeen) writes:
>Another interpretation... When you destroy equipment with first strike,
>does that mean you destroy their equipment as a first strike, or does it
>mean that you can destroy equpiment the has first strike. I always
>though that if a piece of equipment was stolen/destroyed, you could still
>strike with it once. I think that "destroy equipment with first strike",
>allows you to destroy equipment that has first strike, not destroy their
>equip-ment as a first strike. What's the deal???
That's why they wrote a rulebook, so you would know which interpretation was
correct. Section 15.3:
"Destroy Equipment: This effect will force a peice of equipment to be put in
the owner's ash heap. .... The Equipment can be used on the turn it is burned
unless the destroying was done before the use would happen (see First Strike,
p. 35, and Additional Strikes, p.33)"
So: Strike: Destroy Equipment with First Strike is
Strike with First STrike to Destroy Equipment.
(What possible logic could be used to describe an effect which could only
target first-striking weapons?)
: Again, just another way to interpret the thing, and one that I think is
: closer to the concept of the card (assuming it affects the Vamp
: *dealing* aggravated damage, as it should (cf: Tom's explanation of
: the concept of Rotscreck: a Meth. confronts the dealer with the horror
of
: what aggravated damage is, sending him (the dealer) cowering)).
Jyhad is derived from Vampire: The Masquerade. In V:TM Rotschrek refers
to a very specific thing: a vampire's terror of things that will do it
aggravated damge and thereby perhaps kill it. It is considered a phobia.
It has nothing to do with dismay over doing it to other
creatures/vampires. Vampires in V:TM can be so morally degenerate that
they kill all beings just for pleasure, having lost even the capacity for
regret. Such vampires are fully subject to Rotschrek. Tom's concept
creates a perfectly reasonable card, but fits neither the wording on the
card nor the meaning of the card name.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
> Another interpretation... When you destroy equipment with first strike,
> does that mean you destroy their equipment as a first strike, or does it
> mean that you can destroy equpiment the has first strike. I always
> though that if a piece of equipment was stolen/destroyed, you could still
> strike with it once. I think that "destroy equipment with first strike",
> allows you to destroy equipment that has first strike, not destroy their
> equip-ment as a first strike. What's the deal???
Nope. It is a First Strike with an effect of destroying equipment. If
you destroy the weapon your opponent is using, your opponent loses his or
her strike.
If your opponent (say, the Muddled Vampire Hunter) also has First
Strike, your opponent does get to strike and do damage, simultaneously.
In the more likely case that your opponent does not, oh well.
papillo the miniscule
[ quoted text not captured ]
I never thought when I put up the initial posting it would create this many
replies but of all of them I have to agree with this last one. The vampire
is so terrified at the prospect of receiving aggravated damage that he/she
goes into torpor. Again I am also a Vampire the Masquerade player and this
makes much more sense to me.
Curt Adams's other point about Basillia, being the obvious example to prove the
new ruling to be slightly silly. I mean, can you really see Basillia walking
around with a Saturday night special just in case she hurts someone with her
claws? I don't think so!
Clarendon.
Rotschreck can be used whenever a vampire attempts to deal aggravated
damage (and hoses the vampire attempting to do s). It doesn't matter
whether the damage has a hope of working or not. So if your vampire
declares strike of Ivory Bow, and my vampire declares superior Canine
Horde in response, your vampire can get hosed by Rotschreck, even though
the damage isn't going to happen. Similarly, if your vampire declared
Sengir Dagger as its strike and the combat was at range, Rotschreck could
be used on it, even though the damage doesn' thave a hope of hitting home.
(This second situation is more likely to involve someone using Wolf Claws
or something just to cycle their hand.)
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
True. He said the card was mis-named when he posted the explanation. (Or
soon thereafter, when the misnomer was pointed out).
It does fit the wording of the card.
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Curt Adams's other point about Basillia, being the obvious example to
prove the
>new ruling to be slightly silly. I mean, can you really see Basillia walking
>around with a Saturday night special just in case she hurts someone with her
>claws? I don't think so!
Can you really see a Methusealh avoiding taking control of Malkavians just in
case they suffer a bout of Madness (tm)? I don't think so!
Just because a card exists to balance the game (Malk's are popular for their
stealth/bleed capabilities, Basilia is popular for her damage capability)
is no reason to avoid using the (now-balanced) card(s).
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
Good to have you back, Tom. :-)
>Rotschreck can be used whenever a vampire attempts to deal aggravated
>damage (and hoses the vampire attempting to do s). It doesn't matter
>whether the damage has a hope of working or not. So if your vampire
>declares strike of Ivory Bow, and my vampire declares superior Canine
>Horde in response, your vampire can get hosed by Rotschreck, even though
>the damage isn't going to happen. Similarly, if your vampire declared
>Sengir Dagger as its strike and the combat was at range, Rotschreck could
>be used on it, even though the damage doesn' thave a hope of hitting home.
>(This second situation is more likely to involve someone using Wolf Claws
>or something just to cycle their hand.)
Wouldn't the attempt come with the strike?
The intent is there, but not the attempt, if the weapon is destroyed with
First Strike, there is no attempt made (destroyed before the weapon can be
used).
Also, could you please say one more time, simply, who Rotschreck affects?
A) Vampire dealing aggravated damage
B) Vampire receiving (targetted by) aggravated damage
Thank You.
[ quoted text not captured ]
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
> It (the ruling that Rotschrek affects that damaging vampire) does fit> the wording of the card.
Nope. The card says (to abbreviate) " When a minion does something to a
vampire, this happens to the vampire." How on earth can anybody come up
with the interpretation that the effect happens to the minion instead?
You have to assume the card was (a) misnamed and (b) written wrong, too.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Rotschreck hoses a vampire attempting to deal aggravated damage. Simply
being equipped with an Ivory Bow doesn't count as "attempting to deal".
The vampire would actually have to declare a strike of Ivory Bow, or
whatever aggravated strike, before being eligible for Rotschreck.
[ quoted text not captured ]