RotBR/etc (was: 'atomic' bloodhunt?)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB5BA56...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire > > to be moved. > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as > a unit, this is not true. But playing RotBR after the diablerie does require counting the amount of blood that *was* on the burned vampire, since the vampire's already burned by the time you play it. So I'm not sure now that it couldn't work the same way if played in a (hypothetical) divisible diablerie where you played it after blood-moving at the burn-the-vampire step? > > > No. RB is played before the Diablerie unit. RotBR is > > > played after. > > > > Are you telling that RoTBR is played *after* the BH vote ? > > Yes. That's kind of icky in that RotBR doesn't look like it should require surviving the Blood Hunt to be usable, but if it's played after the BH referendum, a burned vampire can't very well play it... All these "play when X" cards seem to produce slightly confusing timing situations, in that you're supposed to play them 'during' or 'when' something that's not normally interruptable happens. (eg Reform Body vs enough aggravated damage to burn: normally you can't interrupt the "burn blood to prevent destruction" process, but Reform Body has to be played then, so you do.) Perhaps it'd be simpler to let them interrupt as appropriate, even during diablerie, just like Direct Intervention does, and interpret (or errata) as appropriate for desired functioning? Josh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > message news:3CB5BA56...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire > > > to be moved. > > > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as > > a unit, this is not true. > > But playing RotBR after the diablerie does require counting > the amount of blood that *was* on the burned vampire, since > the vampire's already burned by the time you play it. So > I'm not sure now that it couldn't work the same way if played > in a (hypothetical) divisible diablerie where you played it > after blood-moving at the burn-the-vampire step? When the vamp burns (diablerie), he had blood on him (that was taken during diablerie). This is not the same effect if the diablerie is divided into its component steps, since "at the burning", the vampire has been empty for a little while. But since the whole diablerie is treated as a unit, it works. > > > > No. RB is played before the Diablerie unit. RotBR is > > > > played after. > > > > > > Are you telling that RoTBR is played *after* the BH vote ? > > > > Yes. > > That's kind of icky in that RotBR doesn't look like it should > require surviving the Blood Hunt to be usable, but if it's > played after the BH referendum, a burned vampire can't very > well play it... > > All these "play when X" cards seem to produce slightly confusing > timing situations, in that you're supposed to play them 'during' > or 'when' something that's not normally interruptable happens. > (eg Reform Body vs enough aggravated damage to burn: normally you > can't interrupt the "burn blood to prevent destruction" process, > but Reform Body has to be played then, so you do.) Perhaps it'd No. You complete that process, then you play reform body instead of burning. (i.e., an empty vampire who takes 16 aggravated damage can play reform body and be saved. He won't have to deal with the "remaining" aggravated damage because it was all applied - not interrupted). > be simpler to let them interrupt as appropriate, even during > diablerie, just like Direct Intervention does, and interpret (or > errata) as appropriate for desired functioning? That'd be a lot of errata to accomplish what the single ruling does. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> > That's kind of icky in that RotBR doesn't look like it should > > require surviving the Blood Hunt to be usable, but if it's > > played after the BH referendum, a burned vampire can't very > > well play it... This is the point Josh made that I'm most interested in hearing a response to. If the acting vamp did indeed have to wait until after the BH, it would significantly reduce the usefulness of the card. Is this indeed when RotBR must be played? Or can it be played at the same time Reform Body could have been played? If not, why not? And if not, why basically wallpaper a card? Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

Sorrow wrote: > > > > That's kind of icky in that RotBR doesn't look like it should > > > require surviving the Blood Hunt to be usable, but if it's > > > played after the BH referendum, a burned vampire can't very > > > well play it... > > This is the point Josh made that I'm most interested in hearing a > response to. If the acting vamp did indeed have to wait until > after the BH, it would significantly reduce the usefulness of the > card. Is this indeed when RotBR must be played? Or can it > be played at the same time Reform Body could have been played? > If not, why not? And if not, why basically wallpaper a card? As stated already: RotBR is played after diablerie. The Blood Hunt is part of the diablerie. Reform Body is played before the diablerie. RotBR cannot be played then since the vampire has not been burned then. RB is played before the vampire is burned, RotBR is played after. Why "wallpaper" the card? Well, without getting into the point of whether the card is wallpaper and, if so, it is only because of this ruling that it is so, the answer is: To avoid errata. (Some people still hold that less errata is good). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB6E0AA...@white-wolf.com... > As stated already: > RotBR is played after diablerie. > The Blood Hunt is part of the diablerie. > Reform Body is played before the diablerie. > RotBR cannot be played then since the vampire has not been > burned then. RB is played before the vampire is burned, RotBR > is played after. I know you've said this before about the timing of RotBR and RB, but I don't understand where it comes from. Both use the exact same timing indication of "being burned". It seems that you agree that, if diablerie *were* divisible, they'd both be played at step 3. So why are they played at different points when diablerie *isn't* divisible? If RB should be played when the vampire is *about* to be burned, why not play RotBR also when the vampire is about to be burned? If the motivation is that RB wouldn't be playable after, since the vampire playing it wouldn't be in play then, why not apply that motivation also to RotBR since the diablerist also has a chance of not being in play after the diablerie? Josh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > As stated already: > > RotBR is played after diablerie. > > The Blood Hunt is part of the diablerie. > > Reform Body is played before the diablerie. > > RotBR cannot be played then since the vampire has not been > > burned then. RB is played before the vampire is burned, RotBR > > is played after. > > I know you've said this before about the timing of RotBR and > RB, but I don't understand where it comes from. Both use the > exact same timing indication of "being burned". It seems that > you agree that, if diablerie *were* divisible, they'd both be > played at step 3. One would be played instead of the burning (before 3) and the other would be played once the vampire is burned (after 3), sure. The latter's text is just poorly effected errata text which failed to preserve the proper original text "if ... vampire is diablerized" (which gives a more suitable indication of timing). The errata was issued to correct the action modifier *or* combat card usage, not to change the timing. [RTR 23-JUN-1998] I'll correct that wording. > So why are they played at different points > when diablerie *isn't* divisible? If RB should be played when Before burning or after burning. The burning occurs in the indivisible diablerie, so you play the effect before or after, as appropriate. > the vampire is *about* to be burned, why not play RotBR also > when the vampire is about to be burned? If the motivation is Because RotBR "should" be played after the burning. > that RB wouldn't be playable after, since the vampire playing > it wouldn't be in play then, why not apply that motivation > also to RotBR since the diablerist also has a chance of not > being in play after the diablerie? If the motivation is to allow RB to be played at all on a diablerie, then that motivation is satisfied, since RotBR can still be played. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I know you've said this before about the timing of RotBR and > RB, but I don't understand where it comes from. Both use the > exact same timing indication of "being burned". It seems that > you agree that, if diablerie *were* divisible, they'd both be > played at step 3. So why are they played at different points > when diablerie *isn't* divisible? If RB should be played when > the vampire is *about* to be burned, why not play RotBR also > when the vampire is about to be burned? If the motivation is > that RB wouldn't be playable after, since the vampire playing > it wouldn't be in play then, why not apply that motivation > also to RotBR since the diablerist also has a chance of not > being in play after the diablerie? > Er, indivisibility aside, your suggestion would create a strange situation if we follow the rules that the acting player gets to play all action modifiers before allowing the reacting player to play any effects. Let's have the situation below - with your suggestion being enforced. A diablerizes Lambach with eight blood on him. A plays RotBR. Now one of two situations occur. 1) B screams blood murder as the by now burned Lambach may no longer react with RB. 2) B happily plays RB after all of A:s vampires have gained the benefit of RotBR. I guess a similar effect would be true for Crimson Fury as well, which in alternative 2 above, if played at inferior, creates a paradox as all of A:s vampires gain the benefit from the diableri and after that said diablerie is canceled. Sten During

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CB6B328...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] LSJ, I am not sure I am following this properly. I can see how Ritual of the Bitter Rose (which incidently is NOT a useless card if used properly - directed at some other reader) is suppose to be played during a diablerie action to gain it's maximum benefit. (i.e. after all blocks either fail and/or are declined) This provides the opportunity to show your intention of gaining and passing around the blood from the diablerized vampire to all fellow ready controlled minions. Cool. But in the area of Reform Body, the text reads the same as Ritual in when it can be used and thus I do not see a vampire ever becoming burned and losing any of it's possessions or retainers. In short, the time to play Reform Body is also after all blocks either fail and/or are declined. The phrase "being burned", used in both cards, delineates that the target vampire has not yet been burned. It is instead sent to torpor. It therefore never actually burned and shouldn't lose any of it's possessions or retainers. Is this correct? Insofar as the Atomic aspect goes, is the change in the rules concerning Diablerie and Blood Hunts to identify that a Blood Hunt Calling determination and a Blood Hunt vote (if required from a Methuselah Calling) is the final portion/aspect/phase of a successful diablerie action? Thanks Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein

Ramsteiner wrote: > But in the area of Reform Body, the text reads the same as Ritual in > when it can be used and thus I do not see a vampire ever becoming > burned and losing any of it's possessions or retainers. In short, the > time to play Reform Body is also after all blocks either fail and/or > are declined. The phrase "being burned", used in both cards, > delineates that the target vampire has not yet been burned. It is > instead sent to torpor. It therefore never actually burned and > shouldn't lose any of it's possessions or retainers. Is this correct? It's correct that you see the same text there. The text itself is not correct, however. See my response to Joshua Duffin's post on the same point. > Insofar as the Atomic aspect goes, is the change in the rules > concerning Diablerie and Blood Hunts to identify that a Blood Hunt > Calling determination and a Blood Hunt vote (if required from a > Methuselah Calling) is the final portion/aspect/phase of a successful > diablerie action? That's no change. The Blood Hunt is listed as the fifth step in diablerie. [6.5.5] [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB6F354...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I know you've said this before about the timing of RotBR and > > RB, but I don't understand where it comes from. Both use the > > exact same timing indication of "being burned". It seems that > > you agree that, if diablerie *were* divisible, they'd both be > > played at step 3. > > One would be played instead of the burning (before 3) and the > other would be played once the vampire is burned (after 3), sure. The problem I keep running into is, the wording on these cards indicates that they should be played *during* burning. It seems to me that we should either allow them to be played then, in the middle of the "burn this vampire" bit, or reword them. Just making diablerie indivisible doesn't by itself take care of these cards; they still need to be "clarified" or "errataed" to tell us when they should *really* be played, and what their effects should *really* be. > The latter's text is just poorly effected errata text which failed to > preserve the proper original text "if ... vampire is diablerized" > (which gives a more suitable indication of timing). The errata was > issued to correct the action modifier *or* combat card usage, not > to change the timing. [RTR 23-JUN-1998] > > I'll correct that wording. Oh, thanks a lot. ;-) The original text: "Only usable in combat if an opposing vampire is diablerized. Each ready vampire you control gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount of blood on the burned vampire." If we assume this is being played after the diablerie happens (sensible), then we're also assuming that RotBR can count the blood that *was* on the vampire when it was burned. In that case, RotBR isn't really helped at all by the 'indivisible' ruling; it could work just as well by counting after (3) the blood that was on the diablerized vampire before (1) was performed. > > So why are they played at different points > > when diablerie *isn't* divisible? If RB should be played when > > Before burning or after burning. The burning occurs in the > indivisible diablerie, so you play the effect before or after, > as appropriate. If we're willing to use the phrase "as appropriate", we don't really *need* an 'indivisible' diablerie to make cards work as they should. :-) > If the motivation is to allow RB to be played at all on a > diablerie, then that motivation is satisfied, since RotBR can > still be played. Only now does it occur to me: given that the blood hunt referendum isn't restricted to "vote-stuff" effects only, the acting vampire should be able to play RotBR *during* the blood hunt referendum. Yes? Josh damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB6F354...@white-wolf.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > I know you've said this before about the timing of RotBR and > > > RB, but I don't understand where it comes from. Both use the > > > exact same timing indication of "being burned". It seems that > > > you agree that, if diablerie *were* divisible, they'd both be > > > played at step 3. > > > > One would be played instead of the burning (before 3) and the > > other would be played once the vampire is burned (after 3), sure. > > The problem I keep running into is, the wording on these > cards indicates that they should be played *during* burning. But cannot be, as nothing is done simultaneously like that - events are sequenced (strike resolution notwithstanding). > It seems to me that we should either allow them to be played > then, in the middle of the "burn this vampire" bit, or reword > them. Just making diablerie indivisible doesn't by itself > take care of these cards; they still need to be "clarified" > or "errataed" to tell us when they should *really* be played, > and what their effects should *really* be. As has been done here, eh? :-) Seriously, the effects should be clear as to whether they apply to an about-to-be-burned vampire or a burned one. > > The latter's text is just poorly effected errata text which failed to > > preserve the proper original text "if ... vampire is diablerized" > > (which gives a more suitable indication of timing). The errata was > > issued to correct the action modifier *or* combat card usage, not > > to change the timing. [RTR 23-JUN-1998] > > > > I'll correct that wording. > > Oh, thanks a lot. ;-) > > The original text: "Only usable in combat if an opposing > vampire is diablerized. Each ready vampire you control gains > an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount > of blood on the burned vampire." If we assume this is being > played after the diablerie happens (sensible), then we're > also assuming that RotBR can count the blood that *was* on > the vampire when it was burned. In that case, RotBR isn't Right. > really helped at all by the 'indivisible' ruling; it could > work just as well by counting after (3) the blood that was on > the diablerized vampire before (1) was performed. With the diablerie treated as one unit, the amount of blood on the vampire before he was burned is the amount on him before he was diablerized. > > > So why are they played at different points > > > when diablerie *isn't* divisible? If RB should be played when > > > > Before burning or after burning. The burning occurs in the > > indivisible diablerie, so you play the effect before or after, > > as appropriate. > > If we're willing to use the phrase "as appropriate", we > don't really *need* an 'indivisible' diablerie to make cards > work as they should. :-) Smilie noted. The indivisible ruling is needed to indicate when it is not appropriate to play an effect and therefore, by extension, when it is. > > If the motivation is to allow RB to be played at all on a > > diablerie, then that motivation is satisfied, since RotBR can > > still be played. > > Only now does it occur to me: given that the blood hunt > referendum isn't restricted to "vote-stuff" effects only, > the acting vampire should be able to play RotBR *during* > the blood hunt referendum. Yes? No. See the restriction on action modifiers. [6.5.6] [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:3CB6F714...@netg.se... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > If RB should be played when > > the vampire is *about* to be burned, why not play RotBR also > > when the vampire is about to be burned? > > Er, indivisibility aside, your suggestion would create a strange > situation if we follow the rules that the acting player gets to > play all action modifiers before allowing the reacting player to > play any effects. You're right, it is weird. But it's not solvable without rewording at least one of the cards, which was supposed to be what we were trying to avoid via rulings. :-) > Let's have the situation below - with your suggestion being enforced. > > A diablerizes Lambach with eight blood on him. > A plays RotBR. > > Now one of two situations occur. > > 1) B screams blood murder as the by now burned Lambach may no longer > react with RB. > > 2) B happily plays RB after all of A:s vampires have gained the benefit > of RotBR. Should be (2) I think. If diablerie were divisible and all "being burned" effects went "in the middle" of step 3, the acting Meth would indeed play RotBR first, but the target Meth would still be able to react with RB "during" the burning. The weirdness of this - that a bunch of vampires got blood from a vampire that wasn't burned - really (IMO) ought to be resolved by rewriting the diablerie section of the rules rather than errataing/clarifying that RB is played when a vampire is *about* to be burned and RotBR is played when a vampire *has* been burned, even though they use the same timing wording. (which LSJ says ought to be changed for RotBR to reflect its 'original' timing placing it after diablerie; fine, but RB's text doesn't say "about to be burned" either.) What I think diablerie's steps should be: 1. Move equipment to the diablerist, move blood to the diablerist, burn the victim. Side/after effects: 2. Search library for skill card. 3. Blood hunt referendum, if desired. Reform Body and Crimson Fury should say "when this vampire is about to be burned/diablerized" and be played just before (1). RotBR should say "when this vampire has just diablerized another vampire" and be played just after (1). (Only (1) is "diablerie" here.) That's if I ran the world. :-) Josh when i am king

Joshua Duffin wrote: > You're right, it is weird. But it's not solvable without > rewording at least one of the cards, which was supposed to > be what we were trying to avoid via rulings. :-) I put much less weight on re-wording existing errata than on creating new errata for printed material. Especially when the errata'ed wording doesn't match the stated purpose of the errata, as in the case of RotBR. > (which LSJ says ought to be changed for RotBR to reflect its > 'original' timing placing it after diablerie; fine, but RB's > text doesn't say "about to be burned" either.) RB says "is being". Like things you do when someone "is dying", you do them before (CPR, for instance). That's the nature of "is verbing" for instant-effect verbs (as opposed to lengthy-effect verbs, like "is breathing" or "is building"). Contrast "is adjective" (like "is dead" or "is burned"). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB6FE7B...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > The problem I keep running into is, the wording on these > > cards indicates that they should be played *during* burning. > > But cannot be, as nothing is done simultaneously like that - > events are sequenced (strike resolution notwithstanding). Mmm. If "during an action" exists, "during being burned" could also exist. (Not if diablerie is an impenetrable unit, of course.) > > Just making diablerie indivisible doesn't by itself > > take care of these cards; they still need to be "clarified" > > or "errataed" to tell us when they should *really* be played, > > and what their effects should *really* be. > > As has been done here, eh? :-) Yes, exactly. That's the problem. :-) > Seriously, the effects should be clear as to whether they apply > to an about-to-be-burned vampire or a burned one. Should be, but currently aren't worded so that they are. > With the diablerie treated as one unit, the amount of blood on > the vampire before he was burned is the amount on him before he > was diablerized. I've laid out my master plan in another message. It's brilliant, I tell you, brilliant. :-) > Smilie noted. > The indivisible ruling is needed to indicate when it is not > appropriate to play an effect and therefore, by extension, when > it is. But it seems like it's been causing a lot more confusion here than just errataing all the cards in question to have clear text would have. Granted, that might have also caused something of an uproar, since there are still some people who don't like extra errata, but the uproar we've actually had is pretty huge from what I can remember. > > Only now does it occur to me: given that the blood hunt > > referendum isn't restricted to "vote-stuff" effects only, > > the acting vampire should be able to play RotBR *during* > > the blood hunt referendum. Yes? > > No. See the restriction on action modifiers. [6.5.6] DOH! (These last couple paragraphs are from another message in this same thread, combined here since it's basically the same topic.) > > (eg Reform Body vs enough aggravated damage to burn: normally you > > can't interrupt the "burn blood to prevent destruction" process, > > but Reform Body has to be played then, so you do.) Perhaps it'd > > No. You complete that process, then you play reform body instead of > burning. (i.e., an empty vampire who takes 16 aggravated damage > can play reform body and be saved. He won't have to deal with the > "remaining" aggravated damage because it was all applied - not > interrupted). But you still have to play RB "in the middle" of the damage- resolution bit where you would be putting the vampire in the ash heap. > > be simpler to let them interrupt as appropriate, even during > > diablerie, just like Direct Intervention does, and interpret (or > > errata) as appropriate for desired functioning? > > That'd be a lot of errata to accomplish what the single ruling > does. Not *that* much errata. There are only a few cards affected. The single ruling seems to be, um, controversial to say the least. :-) Josh and sometimes why

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB70142...@white-wolf.com... > I put much less weight on re-wording existing errata than on creating > new errata for printed material. Especially when the errata'ed wording > doesn't match the stated purpose of the errata, as in the case of > RotBR. Fair enough. > RB says "is being". Like things you do when someone "is dying", > you do them before (CPR, for instance). That's the nature of "is > verbing" for instant-effect verbs (as opposed to lengthy-effect > verbs, like "is breathing" or "is building"). Contrast "is > adjective" (like "is dead" or "is burned"). OK, I can see that. I'd still rather have "is about to be burned" for any future printings. :-) Josh hard to please

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > (eg Reform Body vs enough aggravated damage to burn: normally you > > > can't interrupt the "burn blood to prevent destruction" process, > > > but Reform Body has to be played then, so you do.) Perhaps it'd > > > > No. You complete that process, then you play reform body instead of > > burning. (i.e., an empty vampire who takes 16 aggravated damage > > can play reform body and be saved. He won't have to deal with the > > "remaining" aggravated damage because it was all applied - not > > interrupted). > > But you still have to play RB "in the middle" of the damage- > resolution bit where you would be putting the vampire in the > ash heap. You play it at the end. You handle all the damage as part of damage resolution, even past the point where the vampire has been torporized or burned. Then, when you're done with damage resolution (all the damage is handled), the vampire goes to torpor if he has any unhealed damage (and hasn't been burned). Otherwise an empty vampire who takes 16 agg damage and plays Reform Body when he's burned (by the 2nd point) would then be burned again by the remaining (as yet unhandled) points. [ quoted text not captured ]

> of the Bitter Rose (which incidently is NOT a useless card if used > properly - directed at some other reader) is suppose to be played Which I think is me. I agree, it's not a useless card. However, it will be practically be wall- paper if it turns out that you can only use it if you survive the blood hunt. Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB71487...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > But you still have to play RB "in the middle" of the damage- > > resolution bit where you would be putting the vampire in the > > ash heap. > > You play it at the end. You handle all the damage as part > of damage resolution, even past the point where the vampire has > been torporized or burned. Then, when you're done with damage > resolution (all the damage is handled), the vampire goes to torpor > if he has any unhealed damage (and hasn't been burned). > > Otherwise an empty vampire who takes 16 agg damage and plays > Reform Body when he's burned (by the 2nd point) would then > be burned again by the remaining (as yet unhandled) points. Now I'm confused again. How can you handle damage past the point where the vampire has been burned? Or do you mean, you handle it past the point where it *would be* burned, but don't actually burn it until you're done handling damage, and that's when you play Reform Body? Anyway - the point I think I was trying to make was that Reform Body creates its own 'timing window' where it needs to be played to avoid destruction. This seems to me like a natural way to handle cards of this nature. Josh or, um, something

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB71487...@white-wolf.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > But you still have to play RB "in the middle" of the damage- > > > resolution bit where you would be putting the vampire in the > > > ash heap. > > > > You play it at the end. You handle all the damage as part > > of damage resolution, even past the point where the vampire has > > been torporized or burned. Then, when you're done with damage > > resolution (all the damage is handled), the vampire goes to torpor > > if he has any unhealed damage (and hasn't been burned). > > > > Otherwise an empty vampire who takes 16 agg damage and plays > > Reform Body when he's burned (by the 2nd point) would then > > be burned again by the remaining (as yet unhandled) points. > > Now I'm confused again. How can you handle damage past the > point where the vampire has been burned? Or do you mean, Burned vampires ignore further damage. :-) > you handle it past the point where it *would be* burned, but > don't actually burn it until you're done handling damage, > and that's when you play Reform Body? Right. > Anyway - the point I think I was trying to make was that > Reform Body creates its own 'timing window' where it needs > to be played to avoid destruction. This seems to me like > a natural way to handle cards of this nature. OK. Let's have it create a timing window just before 6.5.5.1. Like the current ruling. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB739C5...@white-wolf.com... [Reform Body timing] > OK. Let's have it create a timing window just before 6.5.5.1. > Like the current ruling. OK, you win. Somehow I'm reminded of arguing with Peter Bakija. :-) Josh survivor of the bakija school of browbeating and steely tenacity

LSJ wrote: > > Sorrow wrote: > > > > > > That's kind of icky in that RotBR doesn't look like it should > > > > require surviving the Blood Hunt to be usable, but if it's > > > > played after the BH referendum, a burned vampire can't very > > > > well play it... > > > > This is the point Josh made that I'm most interested in hearing a > > response to. If the acting vamp did indeed have to wait until > > after the BH, it would significantly reduce the usefulness of the > > card. Is this indeed when RotBR must be played? Or can it > > be played at the same time Reform Body could have been played? > > If not, why not? And if not, why basically wallpaper a card? > > As stated already: > RotBR is played after diablerie. > The Blood Hunt is part of the diablerie. > Reform Body is played before the diablerie. > RotBR cannot be played then since the vampire has not been > burned then. RB is played before the vampire is burned, RotBR > is played after. > > Why "wallpaper" the card? > Well, without getting into the point of whether the card is > wallpaper and, if so, it is only because of this ruling that > it is so, the answer is: > To avoid errata. (Some people still hold that less errata is good). > Hurra! Less errata Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3CB6F354...@white-wolf.com... > > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > > > I know you've said this before about the timing of RotBR and > > > > RB, but I don't understand where it comes from. Both use the > > > > exact same timing indication of "being burned". It seems that > > > > you agree that, if diablerie *were* divisible, they'd both be > > > > played at step 3. > > > > > > One would be played instead of the burning (before 3) and the > > > other would be played once the vampire is burned (after 3), sure. > > > > The problem I keep running into is, the wording on these > > cards indicates that they should be played *during* burning. > > But cannot be, as nothing is done simultaneously like that - > events are sequenced (strike resolution notwithstanding). Oh please. How can you in the same sentance say nothing is done that way then immediantly make exceptions. If the game currently allows certain things simultanesously, then other things, especially things that need to be that way, can easily conform to a simultaneous play situation. Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB739C5...@white-wolf.com... > > [Reform Body timing] > > > OK. Let's have it create a timing window just before 6.5.5.1. > > Like the current ruling. He shoots. He scores. 1 point to Josh. > OK, you win. Somehow I'm reminded of arguing with Peter > Bakija. :-) > > Josh > > survivor of the bakija school of browbeating and steely > tenacity Oh yea. Peter is very tenacious. or as some say: Been there, done that. Raille

Sorrow wrote: > > > of the Bitter Rose (which incidently is NOT a useless card if used > > properly - directed at some other reader) is suppose to be played > > Which I think is me. > I agree, it's not a useless card. However, it will be practically be wall- > paper if it turns out that you can only use it if you survive the blood hunt. > > Sorrow I have to agree. The sub step 4 should be the point where the RotBR is played out, not after the blood hunt. Because by the time you hit step 5, the target vampire has been burned as has full filled all required card text. Like RB, perhaps a 6.5.4.1 needs to be set aside for the play of RotBR. Raille

In message <3CB83D34...@spamcop.net>, Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about: >Sorrow wrote: >> >> > of the Bitter Rose (which incidently is NOT a useless card if used >> > properly - directed at some other reader) is suppose to be played >> >> Which I think is me. >> I agree, it's not a useless card. However, it will be practically be wall- >> paper if it turns out that you can only use it if you survive the blood hunt. >> >I have to agree. The sub step 4 should be the point where the RotBR is >played out, not after the blood hunt. Because by the time you hit step >5, the target vampire has been burned as has full filled all required >card text. > >Like RB, perhaps a 6.5.4.1 needs to be set aside for the play of RotBR. Yeah. Because if he doesn't, then I can't play this deck: 1) Bum's Rush with Lisette Vizquel. 2) Thoughts Betrayed, Claws of the Dead. 3) Smudge diablerizes recently-torporized victim. 4) Smudge plays Ritual of the Bitter Rose and burns in blood hunt. 5) Isabel Giovanni plays Daemonic Possession and gets your vampire back out of the ash heap so I have a fresh minion to diablerize with. (Eventually, Isabel gets a PRO skill card so she can help.) -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Raille wrote: > Oh please. How can you in the same sentance say nothing is done that > way then immediantly make exceptions. > > If the game currently allows certain things simultanesously, then other > things, especially things that need to be that way, can easily conform > to a simultaneous play situation. Because other things are not. Sheesh. Cards resolve when played (except strikes and actions, by necessity). Effects are completely described when played (except political actions). Multiple effects are not handled simultaneously (except strikes, by necessity). Exceptions abound. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > Oh please. How can you in the same sentance say nothing is done that > > way then immediantly make exceptions. > > > > If the game currently allows certain things simultanesously, then other > > things, especially things that need to be that way, can easily conform > > to a simultaneous play situation. > > Because other things are not. Sheesh. > > Cards resolve when played (except strikes and actions, by necessity). > Effects are completely described when played (except political actions). > Multiple effects are not handled simultaneously (except strikes, by necessity). > > Exceptions abound. Yes they do. What I'm getting at is that by allowing cards to interact simultaneously with a *rules section* you still preserve the normal game play of acting player/reacting player effects. Since the cards still par off with each player as they get laid on the table, all which is going on during a set rules section. This is nothing more than extending the current method of play from a larger rules section to a small rules section. Take an action. During the Action multiple effects simultaneously effect the action. Drop this down a level, and you get the declaration of an action with allows the acting player to immediantly play card effects to simulatenously effect that action. Card is simultaneously played in most cases simply to create the action, and multiple cards require play as the action is announced. As you pointed out combat already has this effect built in down to a finely detailed proceedure. Why is this simultaneous effect of card to rule section now all of a sudden prohibited? Raille

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8ihgbu8njnj9b6ill...@4ax.com... > In message <3CB83D34...@spamcop.net>, > Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about: > > >Sorrow wrote: > >> > >> > of the Bitter Rose (which incidently is NOT a useless card if used > >> > properly - directed at some other reader) is suppose to be played > >> > >> Which I think is me. > >> I agree, it's not a useless card. However, it will be practically be wall- > >> paper if it turns out that you can only use it if you survive the blood hunt. > >> > >I have to agree. The sub step 4 should be the point where the RotBR is > >played out, not after the blood hunt. Because by the time you hit step > >5, the target vampire has been burned as has full filled all required > >card text. > > > >Like RB, perhaps a 6.5.4.1 needs to be set aside for the play of RotBR. > > Yeah. Because if he doesn't, then I can't play this deck: > > 1) Bum's Rush with Lisette Vizquel. > 2) Thoughts Betrayed, Claws of the Dead. > 3) Smudge diablerizes recently-torporized victim. > 4) Smudge plays Ritual of the Bitter Rose and burns in blood hunt. > 5) Isabel Giovanni plays Daemonic Possession and gets your vampire > back out of the ash heap so I have a fresh minion to diablerize > with. d'you think it's poverpowered ?? how about the old dom/gangrel playing rush/scorpion poke/graverobbing ?? dodge this =)

In message <3cba071b$0$26990$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> Yeah. Because if he doesn't, then I can't play this deck: >> >> 1) Bum's Rush with Lisette Vizquel. >> 2) Thoughts Betrayed, Claws of the Dead. >> 3) Smudge diablerizes recently-torporized victim. >> 4) Smudge plays Ritual of the Bitter Rose and burns in blood hunt. >> 5) Isabel Giovanni plays Daemonic Possession and gets your vampire >> back out of the ash heap so I have a fresh minion to diablerize >> with. > >d'you think it's poverpowered ?? I think it's a Grade-A nutpuncher. >how about the old dom/gangrel playing rush/scorpion poke/graverobbing ?? It's probably still a nutpuncher even if I use Grave Robbings instead of Smudginating the torporized vampires. But at least then my new minions could Rave their blood back over to pay for all the Thoughts Betrayed and Claws crap. =) >dodge this =) "Majesty; I untap." [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:r32kbuscpgefvmgqc...@4ax.com... > >how about the old dom/gangrel playing rush/scorpion poke/graverobbing ?? > > It's probably still a nutpuncher even if I use Grave Robbings instead of > Smudginating the torporized vampires. But at least then my new minions > could Rave their blood back over to pay for all the Thoughts Betrayed > and Claws crap. =) > > >dodge this =) > > "Majesty; I untap." not all clans have acces to presence =) not all players pack combat ends =) i don't =)