Simple question really, what is the consequences of a vampire having
insufficient blood to burn? If it were damage, the consequences would
be fairly straightforward. So I see it as having one of three effects.
- Vampire is torpored (handled as damage)
- Vampire is reduced to 0 blood (do as much as can, ignore excess)
- Vampire is unaffected (can't do fully, then isn't done)
My gut thinks it's the second, and doubts it's the third.
@@@@@
Also, a question regarding player information. We play fairly
informally, but I am curious how it is handled at a Tourney level,
with regards offered information. I was playing in a game with a
Brujah deck. An opponent was playing a Brujah deck. As there is only a
limited number of Brujah Vampires, is it permissible to discuss
(across an open table) which Vampires we were intending to influence?
Contestation tends to seriously hurt both opponents (wasted pool and
influences even if not contested), and there was no showing of the
cards, so lying was quite possible. My question is, without showing
cards, are you permitted to say what you have in hand/uncontrolled/any
other 'hidden' area you are permitted to see?
Morgan Vening
Morgan Vening wrote:
> Simple question really, what is the consequences of a vampire having
> insufficient blood to burn? If it were damage, the consequences would
> be fairly straightforward. So I see it as having one of three effects.
>
> - Vampire is torpored (handled as damage)
> - Vampire is reduced to 0 blood (do as much as can, ignore excess)
> - Vampire is unaffected (can't do fully, then isn't done)
Assuming you mean "Blood to Water", the vampire is reduced to 0 blood.
Just like if you use superior Theft against a vamp with only 1 blood.
--Colin McGuigan
In message <h2u850h33r74crvr9...@4ax.com>,
Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> mumbled something about:
>Brujah deck. An opponent was playing a Brujah deck. As there is only a
>limited number of Brujah Vampires, is it permissible to discuss
>(across an open table) which Vampires we were intending to influence?
Absolutely, so long as no cards are shown.
>Contestation tends to seriously hurt both opponents (wasted pool and
>influences even if not contested), and there was no showing of the
>cards, so lying was quite possible. My question is, without showing
And this is why the no-showing-cards rule is enforced; to ensure that
there is always some uncertainty.
>cards, are you permitted to say what you have in hand/uncontrolled/any
>other 'hidden' area you are permitted to see?
You can say anything you like about anything you've got that's hidden.
I can read my hand off to you, as long as I don't show you the cards.
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
"Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:h2u850h33r74crvr9...@4ax.com...
> Simple question really, what is the consequences of a vampire having
> insufficient blood to burn? If it were damage, the consequences would
> be fairly straightforward. So I see it as having one of three effects.
>
> - Vampire is torpored (handled as damage)
> - Vampire is reduced to 0 blood (do as much as can, ignore excess)
> - Vampire is unaffected (can't do fully, then isn't done)
>
> My gut thinks it's the second, and doubts it's the third.
Your guts is right.
> Also, a question regarding player information. We play fairly
> informally, but I am curious how it is handled at a Tourney level,
> with regards offered information. I was playing in a game with a
> Brujah deck. An opponent was playing a Brujah deck. As there is only a
> limited number of Brujah Vampires, is it permissible to discuss
> (across an open table) which Vampires we were intending to influence?
Not only is this allowed, but it's actually pretty common. If you see
someone influencing out vamps that have the same discipline spread or
the same clan as your crypt, feel free to ask which ones he's going to
get out and negotiate about who's getting who.
Just two examples of recent games of myself, both tournament.
In the first I played a Zillah's Valley in the first turn, prompting my
grandpredator to ask if I happened to be playing Ventrue Bigcaps. I
happened to do so, as was he. He agreed I could have Marcus Vitel and
Queen Anne, as long as he could get out Arika. Since I didn't have her
in my starting crypt (but surely pretended to have her) I could make
this for me very favorable deal.
The second game, me and my prey were both playing Tremere/!Tremere
AUS/THA decks. The obvious choices for such a deck are Aisling
Sturbridge and Hannigan. My prey got out Blythe Candeleria first,
hinting me of his crypt. I asked him if he played Aisling or Hannigan,
causing him to answer he had both in the starting crypt. As I had only
Aisling there, we made the deal he could have Hannigan if I could get
out Selena.
Negotiating about who's getting out who if common in tournaments,
especially in the rounds beyond the first, as most players' decks are
known by at least a few players at each table. You won't see it as often
if you play non-common clans or disciplines, but if you're playing
(!)Malks, Ventrue or Giovanni, make sure to check for contestation
before you start getting guys out.
> Contestation tends to seriously hurt both opponents (wasted pool and
> influences even if not contested), and there was no showing of the
> cards, so lying was quite possible. My question is, without showing
> cards, are you permitted to say what you have in hand/uncontrolled/any
> other 'hidden' area you are permitted to see?
Yes. You can tell (or bluff) about your hand and uncontrolled region as
much as you want as long as you don't show the cards. Be careful about
your hand though, since the Auspex guys around the table like to verify
that at times.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct.
--
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/
Derek Ray wrote:
> Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> mumbled something about:>>Brujah deck. An opponent was playing a Brujah deck. As there is only a
>>limited number of Brujah Vampires, is it permissible to discuss
>>(across an open table) which Vampires we were intending to influence?>
> Absolutely, so long as no cards are shown.
Correct.
>>Contestation tends to seriously hurt both opponents (wasted pool and
>>influences even if not contested), and there was no showing of the
>>cards, so lying was quite possible. My question is, without showing>
> And this is why the no-showing-cards rule is enforced; to ensure that
> there is always some uncertainty.
>>>cards, are you permitted to say what you have in hand/uncontrolled/any
>>other 'hidden' area you are permitted to see?>
>
> You can say anything you like about anything you've got that's hidden.
> I can read my hand off to you, as long as I don't show you the cards.
Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]