rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

heartblood of the clan quest

8 messages from 7 participants · 02 December 1999
original thread on Google Groups

wijsman

Hello again, I was wondering if the action by which an assamite can move one blood from the blood bank to heartblood is at +1 stealth? Is this type of action an undirected action, as described in the rule book? This rule states :'There is one more complication: nondirected actions at +1 stealth are harder to block.' I say this rule can be interpreted two ways: all nondirected actions are at +1 stealth, or more accent on the 'harder to block', so only those nondirected actions which are at +1 stealth are harder to block. Can anybody tell me which is the right interpretation? Thanks.

James Coupe

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, wijsman wrote: > Hello again, > I was wondering if the action by which an assamite can move one blood > from the blood bank to heartblood is at +1 stealth? No. No stealth modifier is stated on the card, so it is at the default of 0 stealth. (The assamites have an easy time getting stealth with Obfuscate anyway.) -- James Coupe

Sorrow

> I was wondering if the action by which an assamite can > move one blood from the blood bank to heartblood is > at +1 stealth? If it doesn't say so on the card, then it is not. And since it doesn't say so in this case, it isn't a +1 stealth action > Is this type of action an undirected action, as described > in the rule book? Yes > This rulestates :'There is one more complication: nondirected > actions at +1 stealth are harder to block.' I don't see this text in the revised rulebook. Which are you looking at? If it isn't the revised rulebook, my suggestion would be to get and read it. > I say this rule can be interpreted two ways: all nondirected > actions are at +1 stealth, or more accent on the 'harder to > block', so only those nondirected actions which are at +1 > stealth are harder to block. Can anybody tell me which is > the right interpretation? It isn't. Undirected actions are simply actions that are not directed against another Meth or any cards under her control. Also, all actions directed against yourself become undirected. There are several basic action types as defined in the rule book that are both undirected and at +1 stealth: Hunting Equipping Recruiting an Ally/Retainer Political Action and as such are, as your rulebook quote says, harder to block. Anything else will require specific card text indicating that the action is at +1 stealth. Sorrow

LSJ

wijsman wrote: > > Hello again, > I was wondering if the action by which an assamite can move one blood > from the blood bank to heartblood is at +1 stealth? Is this type of No. Minions have 0 stealth on their actions by deault: "By default, minions have zero stealth and zero intercept. So a block attempt will normally succeed unless the action has inherent stealth (such as hunting) or a card or effect is used to increase the acting minion's stealth." [6.2.2.2] > action an undirected action, as described in the rule book? This rule Yes: "If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected" [6.2.2.1] > states :'There is one more complication: nondirected actions at +1 > stealth are harder to block.' I say this rule can be interpreted two That's a quote from an outdated rulebook. Try the revised rulebook (linked in my .sig below). > ways: all nondirected actions are at +1 stealth, or more accent on the Not all nondirected actions are at +1 stealth, and not all actions at +1 stealth are nondirected. > 'harder to block', so only those nondirected actions which are at +1 > stealth are harder to block. Can anybody tell me which is the right > interpretation? It isn't "only" those nondirected actions which are at +1 stealth that are harder to block - it is any action at +1 stealth. But it is true that nondirected actions at +1 stealth are harder to block than nondirected actions at no stealth. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

Derek S. Ray

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:48:37 +0000, James Coupe <jr...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, wijsman wrote: > >> Hello again, >> I was wondering if the action by which an assamite can move one blood >> from the blood bank to heartblood is at +1 stealth? > >No. No stealth modifier is stated on the card, so it is at the default of >0 stealth. (The assamites have an easy time getting stealth with >Obfuscate anyway.) And who wants to block THEM anyway? "Gee, I'm taking a zero-stealth action with this guy with superior QUI and CEL... darn, I don't have Obfuscate cards in hand... blockers? blockers? ...someone?" -- Derek PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

Todd Banister

> And who wants to block THEM anyway? "Gee, I'm taking a zero-stealth > action with this guy with superior QUI and CEL... darn, I don't have > Obfuscate cards in hand... blockers? blockers? ...someone?" > > -- Derek Thats exactly what I thought when I read the post! Who wants to block my Parnassus! Come on - any takers? Please? I would play with the Heartblood card IF I thought you all would block my Assamites. :) The Heartblood card has always been one that I would like to use in my Assamite decks but it just could not make the final cut. The reasoning is because it takes an action to move the a blood down to the Heartblood. Normally in Assamite decks you need to use every action you can with none being wasted so most of my actions are bleeds to oust my prey. The idea that I have had in order to fully utilize the Heartblood would be to give Parnassus Rutor's Hand do he could bleed and perform a Heartblood action therefor not wasting any action. Just have not gotten around to it yet... Another idea to get the Heartblood to work well is to create several smaller babies and have them perform the Heartblood actions to bring out the Assamite Elders. And if someone actually blocked the baby then you Mask of 1000 Faces and reveal that it was actually Abd al-Rashid, or Melek, or Husamettin, etc. etc. Now THAT would be fun. Just some random thoughts. Todd Banister Prince of Atlanta Scribe of the Assamites

R. David Zopf

Todd Banister wrote in message <5Fy14.287$%4.1...@eagle.america.net>... >Another idea to get the Heartblood to work well is to create several smaller >babies and have them perform the Heartblood actions to bring out the >Assamite Elders. And if someone actually blocked the baby then you Mask of >1000 Faces and reveal that it was actually Abd al-Rashid, or Melek, or >Husamettin, etc. etc. Now THAT would be fun. > Done it, and it works _great_!!! The Embrace plus Abd features big early on, followed by Assamite Elders, along with enough cel/qui to keep everyone honest... It's a very versatile deck. Heartblood can be used with reverse transfers for mild blood gain, the weenies can act as a bleed horde, and the elders are combat strong... It's a good all around idea. I'll post my version this evening. Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

Sorrow

> Another idea to get the Heartblood to work well is to create several smaller > babies and have them perform the Heartblood actions to bring out the > Assamite Elders. And if someone actually blocked the baby then you Mask of > 1000 Faces and reveal that it was actually Abd al-Rashid, or Melek, or > Husamettin, etc. etc. Now THAT would be fun. I use Heartblood alot. Stick in Harika or Kanya and not only are they cheap blockers (or attackers, whatever the case may be), but you can use them to move to the Heartblood and use Hidden Lurker after (if) they are blocked. People stop blocking even the weenies after a while and you just bring in the pool. Sorrow -who's fav clan are the Assamites