Some Quick Rules Questions

I have a few quick questions: 1. Blood to Water says something like "if the opposing minion is a vampire he or she burns 3 (or 5) blood; otherwise, he or she is burned." Now does this mean that he/she is burned if the 3 or 5 blood can not be burned? Or does it mean the minion is burned if he/she is not a vampire? Or both? Also, just to make sure, this card is played after range is determined and was errated so that it is only usable at close range, right? And since it is played before strike resolution, if the opposing minion is burned, this happens before any of the other strikes take place, correct? 2. I've gotten somewhat confused with all the D(irected) Actions. So, if you do an undirected action, ONLY your prey and predator can block (except of course for Eagle's Sight) right? But if you have something like Mob Connections which can be burned by any minion, can only the prey/predator do it or can someone across the table? Also, I know the Master OOT's can't be played during YOUR turn, but can you play them when it's someone across the table's turn? 3. And last of all, is their overall negative stealth/intercept? Or is the lowest possible a flat 0? For instance, if I have a minion attempting an action at let's say +1 stealth and my prey uses something to reduce the stealth by 2 (hypothetically speaking) would the action be at -1 or 0 stealth? This would be important if I wanted to play further action modifiers. Thanks a lot! Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:19990503174957...@ng-cm1.aol.com... > I have a few quick questions: > > 1. Blood to Water says something like "if the opposing minion is a vampire he > or she burns 3 (or 5) blood; otherwise, he or she is burned." Now does this > mean that he/she is burned if the 3 or 5 blood can not be burned? Or does it > mean the minion is burned if he/she is not a vampire? Or both? Also, just to > make sure, this card is played after range is determined and was errated so > that it is only usable at close range, right? And since it is played before > strike resolution, if the opposing minion is burned, this happens before any of > the other strikes take place, correct? The "otherwise" refers to the minion being a vampire. If an opponent is removed from combat before strikes, no strikes occur. As to whether it is ranged or not, the card doesn't specifically state it, but I would assume it doesn't matter because the card reads taht you can play it anytime before strikes which could posibly be before range since range is still in combat but before strikes.(Get the ruling on that from LSJ though, I'm probably wrong) > 2. I've gotten somewhat confused with all the D(irected) Actions. So, if you > do an undirected action, ONLY your prey and predator can block (except of > course for Eagle's Sight) right? But if you have something like Mob > Connections which can be burned by any minion, can only the prey/predator do it > or can someone across the table? Also, I know the Master OOT's can't be played > during YOUR turn, but can you play them when it's someone across the table's > turn? > Only the person that the action is directed at it may block a direct action. If it is an indirect action, such as equiping, block attempts are passed around the table. An action stated on a card such as Mob connections may be performed by any vampire (or minion if the case exists) anywhere on the table, and the action is Directed because it directly affects a card under control of a Methuselah. The (D) is a reminder on the card and nothing more. As a directed action, only that Methuselah may protect the card (with the exception of Eagles Sight and a few vamps). > 3. And last of all, is their overall negative stealth/intercept? Or is the > lowest possible a flat 0? For instance, if I have a minion attempting an > action at let's say +1 stealth and my prey uses something to reduce the stealth > by 2 (hypothetically speaking) would the action be at -1 or 0 stealth? This > would be important if I wanted to play further action modifiers. Potentially yes, negative modifiers could and do happen. Regular rules on Stealth/Intercept apply. If the intercept is equal to or greater than the stealth then the action is blocked. Example: a vamp attempting to block with -1 intercept would block and enter combat with a vampire that has a -2 stealth. Whether this could happen, I'm not sure but potentially this is the case. Vince

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > I have a few quick questions: > > 1. Blood to Water says something like "if the opposing minion is a vampire he > or she burns 3 (or 5) blood; otherwise, he or she is burned." Now does this > mean that he/she is burned if the 3 or 5 blood can not be burned? Or does it > mean the minion is burned if he/she is not a vampire? Or both? Also, just to The latter: IF is a vampire THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood ELSE burn him > make sure, this card is played after range is determined and was errated so > that it is only usable at close range, right? And since it is played before Correct. > strike resolution, if the opposing minion is burned, this happens before any of > the other strikes take place, correct? Correct. > 2. I've gotten somewhat confused with all the D(irected) Actions. So, if you > do an undirected action, ONLY your prey and predator can block (except of > course for Eagle's Sight) right? But if you have something like Mob > Connections which can be burned by any minion, can only the prey/predator do it > or can someone across the table? Also, I know the Master OOT's can't be played Rulebook: 6.2.2. Resolve Any Block Attempts 1. Who May Attempt to Block: The Methuselah who is the target (or controls the target) of an action may use her ready untapped minions to attempt to block the action. If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected* and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. The action to burn Mob Connections is directed at the controller of the Mob Connections, so only her minions can attempt to block. (Unless one of her minions is attempting the action, in which case the action is undirected and the minions of her prey and predator can attempt to block.) > during YOUR turn, but can you play them when it's someone across the table's > turn? Yes. > 3. And last of all, is their overall negative stealth/intercept? Or is the > lowest possible a flat 0? For instance, if I have a minion attempting an > action at let's say +1 stealth and my prey uses something to reduce the stealth > by 2 (hypothetically speaking) would the action be at -1 or 0 stealth? This > would be important if I wanted to play further action modifiers. Negatives (of stealth, intercept, bleed, hand damage, etc.) are allowed. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

>The latter: > >IF is a vampire >THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood >ELSE burn him But wouldn't it make sense for Blood to Water to work on most allies as well? Mages, Werewolfs, and Human Gangbangers all have blood (exceptions of course include Ambrosius and the maybe the Mummies). >Negatives (of stealth, intercept, bleed, hand damage, etc.) are allowed. > Do negative bleeds are not considered successful. But do they and negative hand damage give more life/pool? Subtracting a negative is like adding the magnitude of that number. Or is there inherantly a limit of a minimum of 0 damage/pool loss? Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > >The latter: > > > >IF is a vampire > >THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood > >ELSE burn him > > But wouldn't it make sense for Blood to Water to work on most allies as well? > Mages, Werewolfs, and Human Gangbangers all have blood (exceptions of course > include Ambrosius and the maybe the Mummies). ? It burns allies. Any Ally. Even Ambrosius and the Mummies. > >Negatives (of stealth, intercept, bleed, hand damage, etc.) are allowed. > > Do negative bleeds are not considered successful. But do they and negative > hand damage give more life/pool? Subtracting a negative is like adding the > magnitude of that number. Or is there inherantly a limit of a minimum of 0 > damage/pool loss? The effect of a negative bleed is the same as for a zero bleed. Same with negative hand damage. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:19990504120309...@ng-fp1.aol.com... > >The latter: > > > >IF is a vampire > >THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood > >ELSE burn him > > But wouldn't it make sense for Blood to Water to work on most allies as well? > Mages, Werewolfs, and Human Gangbangers all have blood (exceptions of course > include Ambrosius and the maybe the Mummies). > It DOES work on Allies. It KILLS them outright regardless of how much life because they fall into the else category and they don't have blood, allies have life, it is only recommended you use blood counters to represent this. > >Negatives (of stealth, intercept, bleed, hand damage, etc.) are allowed. > > > > Do negative bleeds are not considered successful. But do they and negative > hand damage give more life/pool? Subtracting a negative is like adding the > magnitude of that number. Or is there inherantly a limit of a minimum of 0 > damage/pool loss? An action is only unsuccessful if not blocked. Level of Stealth and Intercept have no bearing on the success on the action, only if a minion was capable of matching the Stealth with intercept amounting to a successful block. Negatives to damage do not add to blood or pool in the case of a negative bleed. It should be noted a negative bleed is equivalent to an unsuccessful bleed action, which means that no blood is lost or gained and no change in the edge. Vince

Halcyan 2 wrote in message <19990504120309...@ng-fp1.aol.com>... >>The latter: >> >>IF is a vampire >>THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood >>ELSE burn him > >But wouldn't it make sense for Blood to Water to work on most allies as well? >Mages, Werewolfs, and Human Gangbangers all have blood (exceptions of course >include Ambrosius and the maybe the Mummies). > Allies fall under the ELSE clause of LSJ's little proof above. Allies are burned outright by a BtW. My follow-up question for LSJ is; If you actually desired your vampire to burn from BtW, can you opt to use the ELSE clause of the above to have the vampire not burn blood, and instead go straight to the ash heap? My initial response (from the above if/then) is that you cannot burn your own vamp in this way. >>Negatives (of stealth, intercept, bleed, hand damage, etc.) are allowed. >> >Do negative bleeds are not considered successful. But do they and negative >hand damage give more life/pool? Subtracting a negative is like adding the >magnitude of that number. Or is there inherantly a limit of a minimum of 0 >damage/pool loss? > Neh. A strike for less than 0 just results in no damage. You can't hunt _that_ way ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

"Richard Zopf" <ze...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>The latter: > >> > >>IF is a vampire > >>THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood > >>ELSE burn him > > My follow-up question for LSJ is; If you actually desired your vampire to > burn from BtW, can you opt to use the ELSE clause of the above to have the > vampire not burn blood, and instead go straight to the ash heap? My initial > response (from the above if/then) is that you cannot burn your own vamp in > this way. Correct - B2W cannot burn vampires at all (unless the sudden loss of blood causes burning via some other effect - like Anathema). [ quoted text not captured ]

> But wouldn't it make sense for Blood to Water to work on most allies as well? > Mages, Werewolfs, and Human Gangbangers all have blood (exceptions of course > include Ambrosius and the maybe the Mummies). If, by the above, you mean that it should make sense that Blood to Water remove blood from allies, and not destroy them, then from a RPG point of view yes. In some instances it does make sense that they should be able to have their blood (although technically for them it's "life") removed. I'm assuming you're looking at this from a RPG point of view, in which any ghoul has vampire blood in them, and a garou should not have the same type of blood as a human. However, you can't always look to the RPG for reasons behind why certain cards/rules in Jyhad work the way they do. For instance, one of my early peeves was with the fact that certain cards (like Body of Sun), which in the RPG are level 10 disciplines and therefore only usable by the Antediluvian, were available for use by any vampire that had the blood to use them. It was ludicrous to think that a minion controlled by a Methuselah (who himself is generations younger than an Antediluvian) could use a power that was previously only usable by the clan founder. But cards like that add a lot to the game. And although some card titles could be picked at, they are still good cards and their additions to Jyhad are definitely fun and desirable. If the cards that I'm thinking about just had different names/titles, I'd have nothing to really complain about. (Sure the occasional broken card shows up, or a combo that's just crazy powerful. But those are addressed and remedied if they need fixing.) I wouldn't advise looking to the RPG too often for explanations. You'll end up frustrated. (Etrius should be a Methuselah on his own, not a vampire controlled by one!) Now if I misread you here, then just take what I've said as a little rant about a few cards. They don't detract from my enjoyment of Jyahd at all. It's the only CCG I play (since my second game, Star Wars, got too expensive to be competitive in), and I can't get enough. p.

On 4 May 1999 16:03:09 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >>The latter: >> >>IF is a vampire >>THEN burn 3 (or 5) blood >>ELSE burn him > >But wouldn't it make sense for Blood to Water to work on most allies as well? >Mages, Werewolfs, and Human Gangbangers all have blood (exceptions of course >include Ambrosius and the maybe the Mummies). It does. If a vampire's blood turns to water, he just loses it - since he needs blood to live but it doesn't serve the same functions to keep him alive as it does in a human - presumably he has a way to get rid of the now useless blood. If your blood turned to water, you'd die promptly, violently, and possibly even messily. =) >>Negatives (of stealth, intercept, bleed, hand damage, etc.) are allowed. > >Do negative bleeds are not considered successful. But do they and negative >hand damage give more life/pool? Subtracting a negative is like adding the >magnitude of that number. Or is there inherantly a limit of a minimum of 0 >damage/pool loss No. Just because you're too weak to strike someone and hurt them doesn't mean you HEAL them by striking them, right? =) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

>No. Just because you're too weak to strike someone and hurt them >doesn't mean you HEAL them by striking them, right? =) No, this just means I've had too much Math! From a different response: "Correct - B2W cannot burn vampires at all (unless the sudden loss of blood causes burning via some other effect - like Anathema)." I thought that the earlier responses seemed to argue the other way around. Or did I misinterpret it all? Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:19990504181101...@ng-ck1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yep you misinterpreted. Vamps rid themselves of the water easily. If blood ceases to be blood in a mortal you die (although somethings in this game that are allies ARE vamps(Blood Brothers and Gargoyles) but we won't get into that they're specific cases which you have to ignore to make the game easier to understand and not bogged down with rules) Vince

Halcyan 2 wrote in message <19990504181101...@ng-ck1.aol.com>... >>No. Just because you're too weak to strike someone and hurt them >>doesn't mean you HEAL them by striking them, right? =) > >No, this just means I've had too much Math! > >From a different response: > >"Correct - B2W cannot burn vampires at all (unless the sudden loss of blood >causes burning via some other effect - like Anathema)." > >I thought that the earlier responses seemed to argue the other way around. Or >did I misinterpret it all? > Okay, lets restart this, so you can see how it works with vampires and others: High cap. Vampire: At close range, a superior BtW is played on the opposing vampire, which has 8 blood. It burns 5 blood, and play goes on as normal. Low cap Vampire: Poor Lupo is the subject of a superior BtW, and he has only 2 blood. Lupo attempt to burn 5 pool, succeeds in burning 2, and fails to burn the last three. No further effect, and we go on to strike selection, etc. (This falls under the rule that a vampire who is compelled to "burn blood" and cannot suffers no debilitating effects. If he must burn more pool than he has, he burns as much as possible, and the balance of the effect is ignored.) Renegade Garou (and other allies): falls under the "otherwise" text, and is burned outright before strike selection. Hope this clarifies. I think that the piece you were missing is the part about vampires who fail to burn blood don't suffer damage or some other fate as a result. Also, the "Otherwise" text on BtW refers strictly to non-vampires (i.e. allies). [ quoted text not captured ]

>Hope this clarifies. I think that the piece you were missing is the part >about vampires who fail to burn blood don't suffer damage or some other fate >as a result. Also, the "Otherwise" text on BtW refers strictly to >non-vampires (i.e. allies). Ah yes, now I understand. I also checked out the Rulings/Clarifications/Errata the other day and that did a decent job explaining as well (probably should have checked that first before posting, eh?). But really! The list of Rulings/Errata/whatever is nearly a mile long! Doesn't this mess things up for many people. Here you are playing a game and so one points out some obscure ruling left and right. Does anyone really have the time to memorize it all? Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote in message <19990505213002...@ng-fg1.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah. Realize though that Errata are the only thing that you _really_ need to know for the purposes of tournament play. Rulings and Clarifications are nice if you need to know about how a judge should/will interpret the function of a particular card or game mechanic. There's also some duplicated statements in the R/E/C listing. Finally, when the expansions were printed, there were cards that were printed on the grounds of previously erroneous Rulings (like the "D" action symbol mess) You'll see quite a few entries that clarify how a card should read now that the game mechanic/rule has been reset to its original intent. The way I went about it was to read through the Errata, then refer to the Rulings and Clarifications for the particular cards that made up the main strategy of whatever deck I was running. Eventually, you'll see most of the relevent stuff without overwhelming yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]