Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?
Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
cost?
--
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/vampire
> Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
> Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
>
> Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
> Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
>
> Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
> some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?
>
> Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
> cost?
*****************************
6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or the
rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot take
this action.
To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the action
(including how the cost will be paid) and tap the acting vampire. If the
action is successful, the cost is paid, and the vampire in torpor is moved
to the ready region. The rescued vampire does not tap or untap as a result
of being rescued. If the action is blocked, the acting vampire and the
blocking minion enter combat as normal. This action has a default +1 stealth
if the acting vampire and the vampire in torpor have the same controller;
otherwise it is simply a directed action.
*******************************
Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.
I'm not sure what happens if A announced the action saying that Maris will
pay and then B refuses... does Jost tap? (clearly the action won't be
successful and he won't pay anything)
I still can't see why it would happen ;-)
Timlagor wrote:
>>Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
>>Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
>>
>>Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
>>Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
>>
>>Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
>>some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?
Yes.
>>Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
>>cost?
No.
> *****************************
> 6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
>
> This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or the
> rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot take
> this action.
>
> To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the action
> (including how the cost will be paid)> *******************************
>
> Paying is done by the Vampire.
Paying is done by one or both of the vampires, as you quoted above.
> Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
> choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.
No. The acting vampire's controller chooses how the cost is paid and announces
that choice when the action is announced. See above.
> I'm not sure what happens if A announced the action saying that Maris will
> pay and then B refuses... does Jost tap? (clearly the action won't be
> successful and he won't pay anything)
If the action is successful, Maris pays (same as any successful action - the
cost is paid).
> I still can't see why it would happen ;-)
Fame springs to mind. But I often see cross-table rescues happen that specify
that the target pay the cost.
--
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 Tue, 1 Jul 2003 01:37:38 +0100, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled:
>> Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
>> Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
>>
>> Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
>> Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
>>
>> Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
>> some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?
>>
>> Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
>> cost?>
>*****************************
>6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
>
>This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or the
>rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot take
>this action.
>
>To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the action
>(including how the cost will be paid) and tap the acting vampire. If the
>action is successful, the cost is paid, and the vampire in torpor is moved
>to the ready region. The rescued vampire does not tap or untap as a result
>of being rescued. If the action is blocked, the acting vampire and the
>blocking minion enter combat as normal. This action has a default +1 stealth
>if the acting vampire and the vampire in torpor have the same controller;
>otherwise it is simply a directed action.
>*******************************
>
>Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
>choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.
There is nothing in the rule you cited above that says you cannot
choose the torpored vampire to pay if you don't control it. it
specifically says the cost can be paid by the acting vampire or the
rescued vampire or split.
>I'm not sure what happens if A announced the action saying that Maris will
>pay and then B refuses... does Jost tap? (clearly the action won't be
>successful and he won't pay anything)
You announce "Jost attempts to rescue Maris, paying two off Maris, if
you don't like it, try and block! Oh, this is a +1 stealth action
because of Jost's special ability. Ha. Haha. Hahahaha."
The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:56:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>Timlagor wrote:>>>Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
>>>Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
>>>
>>>Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
>>>Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
>>>
>>>Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
>>>some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?>
>Yes.
??
>>>Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
>>>cost?>
>No.
??
[snip]
> > Paying is done by the Vampire.
>
>Paying is done by one or both of the vampires, as you quoted above.
>>> Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
>> choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.>
>No. The acting vampire's controller chooses how the cost is paid and announces>that choice when the action is announced.[snip]
doesn't this contradict your statements above?
>> I'm not sure what happens if A announced the action saying that Maris will
>> pay and then B refuses... does Jost tap? (clearly the action won't be
>> successful and he won't pay anything)>
>If the action is successful, Maris pays (same as any successful action - the
>cost is paid).
again, contradicting your and 'no' answer above...
>> I still can't see why it would happen ;-)>
>Fame springs to mind. But I often see cross-table rescues happen that specify
>that the target pay the cost.
correct. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> You announce "Jost attempts to rescue Maris, paying two off Maris, if
> you don't like it, try and block! Oh, this is a +1 stealth action
> because of Jost's special ability. Ha. Haha. Hahahaha."
>
> The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
I think it more goes like this:
"I want to rescue your vampire if she pays the 2 blood."
"I don't wanna pay the two blood"
"k. No rescue action then" <goes off to do something else>
I don't think you can force someone to pay the two blood. You don't control
the target after all.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:25:25 +0200, "Phoenix" <izaak.h...@o2.nl>
scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
"I want to smash and grab to burn down your High Museum"
"I don't wanna lose it"
"oh, sorry. I guess i cant do it then"
??
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <bdqrkr$b0o$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, Phoenix
<izaak.h...@o2.nl> writes:
>I don't think you can force someone to pay the two blood. You don't control
>the target after all.
You're wrong. You control the acting minion, which is all that is
relevant.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
salem wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:56:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>>>Timlagor wrote:>>>>Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
>>>>Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
>>>>
>>>>Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
>>>>Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
>>>>
>>>>Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
>>>>some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?>>>>>Yes.> ??
Oops. No.
>>>>Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
>>>>cost?>>>>>No.
Oops. Yes.
> [snip]
>>>>Paying is done by the Vampire.>>
>>Paying is done by one or both of the vampires, as you quoted above.
>>
>>>>>Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
>>>choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.>>
>>No. The acting vampire's controller chooses how the cost is paid and announces
>>that choice when the action is announced.[snip]>
> doesn't this contradict your statements above?
Yes. The statements above were incorrect. When reading the question, I swapped
A for B.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>*****************************
>>6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
>>
>>This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or the
>>rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot take
>>this action.
>>
>>To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the action
>>(including how the cost will be paid) and tap the acting vampire. If the
>>action is successful, the cost is paid, and the vampire in torpor is moved
>>to the ready region. The rescued vampire does not tap or untap as a result
>>of being rescued. If the action is blocked, the acting vampire and the
>>blocking minion enter combat as normal. This action has a default +1 stealth
>>if the acting vampire and the vampire in torpor have the same controller;
>>otherwise it is simply a directed action.
>>*******************************
>>
>>Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
>>choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.>
> There is nothing in the rule you cited above that says you cannot
> choose the torpored vampire to pay if you don't control it. it
> specifically says the cost can be paid by the acting vampire or the
> rescued vampire or split.
The critical word is *"pay"*. You can only *pay* with a vampire you control.
A can *assign* payment to Maris but *cannot pay* the blood from a vampire
they don't control.
> The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
LSJ disagrees ;-P
>
> "I want to smash and grab to burn down your High Museum"
> "I don't wanna lose it"
> "oh, sorry. I guess i cant do it then"
That's not really the same situation now it it?
What you are saying is that the acting minion's controller decides how the
blood is payed?
So, I have no control over this whatsoever? I have always thought as
cross-table rescue actions as a token of friendship. Part of a deal. A way
to make a friend for a few turns. Whatever. It simply makes no sense this
way.
Fame is the *only* card I can think of why you would want to rescue
someone's vampire from an offensive PoV, and that's the only situation where
you would also want to force someone's vampire to pay the 2 blood.
Too bad LSJ was contradicting himself, so we'll have to wait for a new
ruling from him.
> LSJ wrote>> Timlagor wrote:> >>Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
> >>Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
> >>
> >>Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
> >>Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
> >>
> >>Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
> >>some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?
> Yes.>>>Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
>>>cost?> No.
<left because you (LSJ) appear to contradict it later>
>> *****************************
>> 6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
>>
>> This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or the
>> rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot take
>> this action.
>>
>> To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the action
>> (including how the cost will be paid)
>> *******************************
>>>> Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
>> choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.>
> No. The acting vampire's controller chooses how the cost is paid and announces
> that choice when the action is announced. See above.
Yes and then B can decline to make the payment as you stated above.
>> I'm not sure what happens if A announced the action saying that Maris will
>> pay and then B refuses... does Jost tap? (clearly the action won't be
>> successful and he won't pay anything)> If the action is successful, Maris pays (same as any successful action - the
> cost is paid).
You directly contradict your original answers here.
EITHER the acting vampire can deliberately burn blood from someone else's
vampire in torpor to rescue them against their wishes (which strikes me as
wrong for both V:tES and V:tM)
OR Methuselah B (controlling Maris) can decline to pay.
If the latter, B presumably does not have to say so until the action would
be successful - so presumably Jost is tapped and Maris is not rescued (cost
not having been payed).
If the cost was to be split does Jost (as the acting Vampire) pay 1 Blood
before Maris gets to decline?
If A really wants to rescue Maris so he can torporise again, they have but
to pay the full cost from Jost. If it's a friendly rescue, the question of
payment ought to be resolved in advance.
>> I still can't see why it would happen ;-)> Fame springs to mind. But I often see cross-table rescues happen that specify
> that the target pay the cost.
Fame! of course ;-)
Timlagor wrote:
>>There is nothing in the rule you cited above that says you cannot
>>choose the torpored vampire to pay if you don't control it. it
>>specifically says the cost can be paid by the acting vampire or the
>>rescued vampire or split.>
> The critical word is *"pay"*. You can only *pay* with a vampire you control.
> A can *assign* payment to Maris but *cannot pay* the blood from a vampire
> they don't control.
You specify how the cost is paid.
If the action is successful, the cost is paid.
If the rescuee is to pay, then he pays.
>>The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.> LSJ disagrees ;-P
The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
Sorry for the confusion earlier.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> There is nothing in the rule you cited above that says you cannot
>> choose the torpored vampire to pay if you don't control it. it
>> specifically says the cost can be paid by the acting vampire or the
>> rescued vampire or split.>
> The critical word is *"pay"*. You can only *pay* with a vampire you control.
> A can *assign* payment to Maris but *cannot pay* the blood from a vampire
> they don't control.
>
>>> The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.> LSJ disagrees ;-P
Apparently LSJ agrees with you after all :-(
Personally I don't think this is a good thing -if you want to retorporise a
famed vampire you should not be able to burn it's blood bringing it out to
make your job even easier.
Timlagor wrote:
>>LSJ wrote>>>Timlagor wrote:>>>>Situation: Methuselah A controls Jost Werner. Methuselah B controls
>>>>Maris Streck, who is in torpor with 2 blood.
>>>>
>>>>Methuselah A says: "Jost Werner attempts to rescue Maris from torpor."
>>>>Methuselah B says: "Maris isn't paying for that!"
>>>>
>>>>Does Methuselah B have the option/ability to make Maris refuse to pay
>>>>some/all of the blood cost for being rescued from torpor?>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>Or does the acting minion's controller have control of who pays the
>>>>cost?>>>>>No.> <left because you (LSJ) appear to contradict it later>
Correct. I misread the questions above.
Invert the two incorrect answers above to arrive at the correct answers.
Sorry for the confusion.
>>>*****************************
>>>6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
>>>
>>>This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or the
>>>rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot take
>>>this action.
>>>
>>>To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the action
>>>(including how the cost will be paid)
>>>*******************************
>>>
>>>Paying is done by the Vampire. If you don't control the Vampire, you cannot
>>>choose to pay with it. -B can refuse.>>
>>No. The acting vampire's controller chooses how the cost is paid and announces
>>that choice when the action is announced. See above.>
> Yes and then B can decline to make the payment as you stated above.
No. When an action (any action) resolves successfully, the cost is paid.
There is no choice at that time.
>>>I'm not sure what happens if A announced the action saying that Maris will
>>>pay and then B refuses... does Jost tap? (clearly the action won't be
>>>successful and he won't pay anything)>>
>>If the action is successful, Maris pays (same as any successful action - the
>>cost is paid).>
> You directly contradict your original answers here.
>
> EITHER the acting vampire can deliberately burn blood from someone else's
> vampire in torpor to rescue them against their wishes (which strikes me as
> wrong for both V:tES and V:tM)
This is correct (except for the "wrong from a backstory and CCG" part).
> OR Methuselah B (controlling Maris) can decline to pay.
B/Maris cannot decline to pay.
> If the latter, B presumably does not have to say so until the action would
> be successful - so presumably Jost is tapped and Maris is not rescued (cost
> not having been payed).
>
> If the cost was to be split does Jost (as the acting Vampire) pay 1 Blood
> before Maris gets to decline?
Moot. Maris cannot decline.
> If A really wants to rescue Maris so he can torporise again, they have but
> to pay the full cost from Jost. If it's a friendly rescue, the question of
> payment ought to be resolved in advance.
Yes, if it's friendly, there ought to be an agreement.
But it doesn't have to be friendly.
>>>I still can't see why it would happen ;-)>>
>>Fame springs to mind. But I often see cross-table rescues happen that specify
>>that the target pay the cost.>
> Fame! of course ;-)
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> The torpored vampire is in position to defend himself from being roused.
Sigh. Not my day for typing.
The torpored vampire isn't in position to defend himself.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:55:50 +0200, "Phoenix" <izaak.h...@o2.nl>
scrawled:
>>
>> "I want to smash and grab to burn down your High Museum"
>> "I don't wanna lose it"
>> "oh, sorry. I guess i cant do it then">
>That's not really the same situation now it it?
Yeah, sorry about that. I was getting a bit belligerent.
*sheepish grin*
>What you are saying is that the acting minion's controller decides how the
>blood is payed?
that is what i am saying, and what LSJ followed up to my follow up to
his post to confirm.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Phoenix wrote:
>>"I want to smash and grab to burn down your High Museum"
>>"I don't wanna lose it"
>>"oh, sorry. I guess i cant do it then">
>
> That's not really the same situation now it it?
>
> What you are saying is that the acting minion's controller decides how the
> blood is payed?
Yes.
> So, I have no control over this whatsoever?
If you are not the acting minion's controller, you have no control over what
the declaration of the action, no.
> I have always thought as
> cross-table rescue actions as a token of friendship. Part of a deal. A way
> to make a friend for a few turns. Whatever. It simply makes no sense this
> way.
It makes fine sense.
The torpored vampire is in position to defend himself from being roused.
Upon being roused (and finding no free blood being stuffed down his throat),
his vampiric system autonomously sets about using the power of his blood to
heal himself.
> Fame is the *only* card I can think of why you would want to rescue
> someone's vampire from an offensive PoV, and that's the only situation where
> you would also want to force someone's vampire to pay the 2 blood.
OK.
> Too bad LSJ was contradicting himself, so we'll have to wait for a new
> ruling from him.
Or use one of the myriad of old ones.
In general, though, on contradictions, go with the essay answers, since the
contradictions usually stem from a misreading of the question.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:10:42 +0100, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled:
[snip]
{me}>>> The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
{timlagor}>> LSJ disagrees ;-P
{timlagor}>Apparently LSJ agrees with you after all :-(
I am so smart, S-M-R-T.....
>Personally I don't think this is a good thing -if you want to retorporise a
>famed vampire you should not be able to burn it's blood bringing it out to
>make your job even easier.
well that's what you get for letting it go to torpor in the first
place. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
*****************************
6.5.3. Rescue a Vampire from Torpor
This action costs 2 blood, which can be paid by the acting vampire or
the
rescued vampire, or the cost may be split between them. Allies cannot
take
this action.
To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce the
action
(including how the cost will be paid) and tap the acting vampire. If
the
action is successful, the cost is paid, and the vampire in torpor is
moved
to the ready region. The rescued vampire does not tap or untap as a
result
of being rescued. If the action is blocked, the acting vampire and the
blocking minion enter combat as normal. This action has a default +1
stealth
if the acting vampire and the vampire in torpor have the same
controller;
otherwise it is simply a directed action.
*******************************
Again: To have a vampire rescue another vampire from torpor, announce
the action
(including how the cost will be paid) and tap the acting vampire.
What does it say!
The acting vampire's methuselah anounces how it will be paid. The
defenceless incapetated vampire in torpor has nothing to say, but
wispering to the maggots in his coffin.
Have fun playing
Oortje
In message <bdrt2e$6rk$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, Phoenix
<izaak.h...@o2.nl> writes:
>So, I have no control over this whatsoever? I have always thought as
>cross-table rescue actions as a token of friendship. Part of a deal. A way
>to make a friend for a few turns. Whatever. It simply makes no sense this
>way.
Sure it does.
You *can* choose to make friends.
Before you go for it, you *can* ask them "Do you want to pay? Do you
want me to pay? Do you mind....?" Just ask it as table talk: "Do you
want me to rescue Volker? And how do you want to split the cost?" Then
act like that.
Or you can choose to not make friends, bringing a vampire back out with
no blood on them, so they have to hunt, or similar.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <1dnogv0rbsic5.1d1963o10vus1$.d...@40tude.net>, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>Personally I don't think this is a good thing
It has been like this ever since Jyhad.
> -if you want to retorporise a
>famed vampire you should not be able to burn it's blood bringing it out to
>make your job even easier.
Why not? Theme-wise, it's perfectly fine.
However, this particular set-up has been known for years, and no-one has
yet managed to abuse it, though some decks have been made which use it
well.
Remember, you have to waste a vampire action to bring them back out -
this is not an altogether small commodity. What could that vampire be
doing otherwise? Perhaps torporising a different vampire?
It's at zero stealth - they can block. If they're playing single
vampire strategies, that's their own choice and it brings in this
problem. If not, they can choose to block with other vampires. If you
aren't playing with Wakes or spare vampires to block with, you can
already get screwed by multiple situations.
You need another rush to get them back into torpor (or some other tech
that will put them back there). They can defend again, playing Dodge or
Majesty or whatever. Sure, you've cost them some blood, but there are
myriad options in the game which allow for defence without needing whole
heaps of blood - Fake Out, Dodge, damage prevention and so on.
And you've just taken three vampire actions, which could equally have
been three Computer Hackings for the same amount of pool loss.
What's the problem?
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1dnogv0rbsic5.1d1963o10vus1$.d...@40tude.net>, Timlagor
> <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>Personally I don't think this is a good thing>
> It has been like this ever since Jyhad.
Not quite.
Although the Jyhad rulebook said the "you" (the acting Methuselah) must
"sacrifice" two blood "points" by "removing them from either the rescuing
vampire or the rescued vampire, or by removing one blood point from each
vampire," the "design team" at the time didn't see it that way.
It wasn't this way in DTR 09-MAY-1995, nor in the "Disguised Flamethrower
Edition" of the FAQ (15-JUN-1995), both of which said that the cost was
paid wholly by the acting vampire if the target was controlled by a
different Methuselah.
It became as it is now with the release of the V:TES 1995 printing (the
rulebook printed with that set again made it clear that the acting
Methuselah dictated the blood loss).
This was listed as a "Change from Jyhad to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle"
(specifically a "reversal of a Jyhad ruling") when the rulebook was
posted online, however. [TOM 28-SEP-1995]
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:52:19 +1000, salem wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:10:42 +0100, Timlagor
> <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled:
> [snip]
> {me}>>> The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
> {timlagor}>> LSJ disagrees ;-P
> {timlagor}>Apparently LSJ agrees with you after all :-(
>
> I am so smart, S-M-R-T.....
What has your sartorial sense got to do with anything?
>>Personally I don't think this is a good thing -if you want to retorporise a
>>famed vampire you should not be able to burn it's blood bringing it out to
>>make your job even easier.> well that's what you get for letting it go to torpor in the first
> place. ;)
But my Faithful Servant doesn't help me when I'm awake ;-(
> It makes fine sense.
>
> The torpored vampire is in position to defend himself from being roused.
>
> Upon being roused (and finding no free blood being stuffed down his throat),
> his vampiric system autonomously sets about using the power of his blood to
> heal himself.
It is the rousing that takes the blood -if the blood is not there, the
vampire is not roused. In particular it is not roused and then returned to
torpor (thank goodness for those famous people)
You could say that the acting vampire can feed from the torporised one first
but in that case why limit it to 2 blood?
Timlagor wrote:
> It is the rousing that takes the blood -if the blood is not there, the
> vampire is not roused. In particular it is not roused and then returned to
> torpor (thank goodness for those famous people)
No. The rousing is what gets the vampire's system going again, so he can
begin to activate the power of the blood to heal himself.
> You could say that the acting vampire can feed from the torporised one first
> but in that case why limit it to 2 blood?
Because that's what it takes to heal the wounded vampire back to the ready
region.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Sigh. Not my day for typing.
> The torpored vampire isn't in position to defend himself.
:o
Thanks anyway for clearing this up.
It still makes no sense to me though =/
"Phoenix" <izaak.h...@o2.nl> wrote:
> Fame is the *only* card I can think of why you would want to rescue
> someone's vampire from an offensive PoV, and that's the only situation where
> you would also want to force someone's vampire to pay the 2 blood.
There are other situations. For example, your prey may have two
minions - A (a not-so-useful vamp) and B (more powerful but in torpor
with 2 blood).
On your prey's turn, you believe that A will rescue B (A pays 2 blood)
and then B will do something horrible to you or your grand-prey.
Fortunately, you have an untapped minion who can attempt to rescue B
before A gets the chance. By forcing B to pay for the rescue, B will
be empty next turn and must hunt.
(instead of stealth-bleeding your grand-prey for 6, perhaps)
Of course, ideally you would have a minion diablerise B, but sometimes
this just isn't possible (eg, your predator has vote control).
--
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/vampire
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:08:03 +0100, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:52:19 +1000, salem wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:10:42 +0100, Timlagor
>> <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled:
>> [snip]
>> {me}>>> The rescuee has no choice about whether or not to pay.
>> {timlagor}>> LSJ disagrees ;-P
>> {timlagor}>Apparently LSJ agrees with you after all :-(
>>
>> I am so smart, S-M-R-T.....>
>What has your sartorial sense got to do with anything?
very little, i presume!
>>>Personally I don't think this is a good thing -if you want to retorporise a
>>>famed vampire you should not be able to burn it's blood bringing it out to
>>>make your job even easier.>> well that's what you get for letting it go to torpor in the first
>> place. ;)>
>But my Faithful Servant doesn't help me when I'm awake ;-(
oh, you're trying to get _that_ to work. good luck! (i'd always just
thought, when thinking of faithful servant decks, that diablerie would
be what you'd have to be ready for.....it never occured to me that you
might have to try and stop rescues, too...hmmm..)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:47:04 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>James Coupe wrote:>> In message <1dnogv0rbsic5.1d1963o10vus1$.d...@40tude.net>, Timlagor
>> <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>Personally I don't think this is a good thing>>
>> It has been like this ever since Jyhad.>
>Not quite.
>
>Although the Jyhad rulebook said the "you" (the acting Methuselah) must
>"sacrifice" two blood "points" by "removing them from either the rescuing
>vampire or the rescued vampire, or by removing one blood point from each
>vampire," the "design team" at the time didn't see it that way.
>
>It wasn't this way in DTR 09-MAY-1995, nor in the "Disguised Flamethrower
>Edition" of the FAQ (15-JUN-1995), both of which said that the cost was
>paid wholly by the acting vampire if the target was controlled by a
>different Methuselah.
>
>It became as it is now with the release of the V:TES 1995 printing (the
>rulebook printed with that set again made it clear that the acting
>Methuselah dictated the blood loss).
>
>This was listed as a "Change from Jyhad to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle"
>(specifically a "reversal of a Jyhad ruling") when the rulebook was
>posted online, however. [TOM 28-SEP-1995]
yeah, i didn't want to mention this myself as i thought it might
confuse people a bit. I'm suprised anyone other than me remembers all
of that, though.
yes. i knew all that. i did. really.
stop looking at me like that!
[ quoted text not captured ]