I'd love an official answer, but as we seem to have been left to our own
devices again... opinions welcome!
This came up during a discussion the other day: Murder of Crows does
ranged damage, and Ghoul Retainer has that possibility, but can they
actually target another retainer? The rulebook (12.3.1, Employ Retainer)
specifically uses the words:
... The Methuselah controlling the MINION dealing the ranged damage may
choose to apply all of it to either the minion or to a retainer on the
minion.
So... is this simply an oversight on the part of the rules writers? Can
anyone come up with good justification why a retainer should/should not
be able to target an opposing retainer?
Shane H.W. Travis | When a stupid man is doing something he is
tra...@duke.usask.ca | ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Bernard Shaw
Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote:
: anyone come up with good justification why a retainer should/should not
: be able to target an opposing retainer?
Yes. In Vampire: The Masqurade, (which is of course the
source for Jyhad) Animalism skill allow the vampire to control
the mind of creatures such as crows (since I assume the question
is for Murder of Crows.) These creatures are contolled by the
vampire as if they were fingers on his hand. So why would
they NOT be able to target an opposing retainer? If the vampire
can choose who to attack, than he certainly should be able to
choose who his retainers can attack.
--
Terry Wright | "Diplomacy is the art of letting
Tww...@cs.usask.ca | someone else have your way."
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | - Danielle Vare
Canada
In article <41ai51$9...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane
Travis) wrote:
: I'd love an official answer, but as we seem to have been left to our own: devices again... opinions welcome!
:
: This came up during a discussion the other day: Murder of Crows does
: ranged damage, and Ghoul Retainer has that possibility, but can they
: actually target another retainer? The rulebook (12.3.1, Employ Retainer)
: specifically uses the words:
:
: ... The Methuselah controlling the MINION dealing the ranged damage may
: choose to apply all of it to either the minion or to a retainer on the
: minion.
:
: So... is this simply an oversight on the part of the rules writers? Can: anyone come up with good justification why a retainer should/should not
: be able to target an opposing retainer?:
Good question Shane. I do not see any problem with retainers dealing
long-range damage to other retainers. The specific retainer cards (Murder
of Crows and Ghoul Retainer with a gun) do not specify who the damage is
applied to.
But perhaps the answer lies in the beginning part of the rule you quoted.
I will quote the entire sentence.
12.3.1 Employ Retainers
The only damage that can be dealt to them (retainers) is ranged damage,
and any time ranged damage is dealt to a minion, the Methuselah
controlling the minion dealing the damage may choose to apply all of it to
either the minion or to a retainer of the minion.
Well, my take would be as follows. When resolving damage dealt to a
minion, the Meth dealing the damage would determine whether all of the
ranged damage is dealt to the minion or the minion's retainer.
A couple examples of how this might work:
1) Sebastian Marley has a Murder of Crows and is at close range vs. Ozmo
with Tasha Morgan. Sebastian and Ozmo hit each other and the Murder of
Crows does 1 pt of ranged damage which could be applied to Tasha if SM's
Meth wanted.
2) Same situation as above, but now SM has a .44 Magnum. Combat is now at
long range and SM shoots Ozmo and the MoC does it's damage. Now SM's Meth
has to decide whether all 3 points of ranged damage is dealt to EITHER
Ozmo or Tasha.
3) Instad of SM in combat, we now have Sarah Cobbler with a Ghoul Retainer
and a .44 Magnum vs poor old Ozmo and Tasha Morgan. Sarah manuevers to
long range (not with the gun) and plays Theft of Vitae to steal 2 blood
and the Ghoul Retainer uses the Magnum. In this circumstance, either the
Theft of Vitae or the gun could be aimed at Tasha and the other aimed at
Ozmo, because stealing blood is not dealing damage.
Well, that is my strict interpretation of the above rule. It also goes
well with the other statement in the Employ Retainer section stating that
that a retainer cannot act independantly from the vamp, meaning if a vamp
usies long range damage to attack another retainer then his mion
inflicting long range damage would have to follow suit. As you can see
it leads to some interesting circumstances that I am not sure I am happy
with. #3 for example is questionable at the least. I could understand
not allowing the steal blood to be separated from the rest of the damage.
Well I throw this out for comment to the general crowd.
stephen
tww...@cs.usask.ca (Terry Wright) writes:
>Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote:
>: anyone come up with good justification why a retainer should/should not
>: be able to target an opposing retainer?> Yes. In Vampire: The Masqurade, (which is of course the
>source for Jyhad) Animalism skill allow the vampire to control
>the mind of creatures such as crows (since I assume the question
>is for Murder of Crows.) These creatures are contolled by the
>vampire as if they were fingers on his hand. So why would
>they NOT be able to target an opposing retainer? If the vampire
>can choose who to attack, than he certainly should be able to
>choose who his retainers can attack.
Well, I think Retainers should be able to target Retainers with ranged
damage - but only because the rules are clearly myopic. Obviously,
the meant to say - the dealer of ranged damage chooses the target - but
they came up with the controller of the MINION dealing ranged damage ...
The animalism = control argument doesn't work, since the DT says that you
can exert NO control whatsoever over Retainers, except as provided by
card text (Retainers are not optional).
The "Masquerade as Source" also doesn't hold water for the DT as witnessed
by their repeated mis-ruling on Rotschreck.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: The "Masquerade as Source" also doesn't hold water for the DT as witnessed
: by their repeated mis-ruling on Rotschreck.
Point taken. I withdraw that argument, but just because the DT is
missing the point, doesn't mean that those of us who are interested in
helping Jyhad should.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>
>The "Masquerade as Source" also doesn't hold water for the DT as witnessed
>by their repeated mis-ruling on Rotschreck.
maybe the vampire dealing aggravated damage is supposed to become really scared
because he thinks "if i could do it to somebody, somebody could do it to ME!"
:-)
we play it the other way in our group.
gnfnrf
> 3) Instad of SM in combat, we now have Sarah Cobbler with a Ghoul Retainer
> and a .44 Magnum vs poor old Ozmo and Tasha Morgan. Sarah manuevers to
> long range (not with the gun) and plays Theft of Vitae to steal 2 blood
> and the Ghoul Retainer uses the Magnum. In this circumstance, either the
> Theft of Vitae or the gun could be aimed at Tasha and the other aimed at
> Ozmo, because stealing blood is not dealing damage.
Except that retainers don't have blood, remember? The steal blood would
have to go to the vampire, and I'd rule the Magnum may target either.
J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com>
PGP keys by request
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
In article <ewwa-23089...@portb15.chattanooga.net>,
ew...@chattanooga.net (J. Andrew Lipscomb) wrote:
: > 3) Instad of SM in combat, we now have Sarah Cobbler with a Ghoul Retainer: > and a .44 Magnum vs poor old Ozmo and Tasha Morgan. Sarah manuevers to
: > long range (not with the gun) and plays Theft of Vitae to steal 2 blood
: > and the Ghoul Retainer uses the Magnum. In this circumstance, either the
: > Theft of Vitae or the gun could be aimed at Tasha and the other aimed at
: > Ozmo, because stealing blood is not dealing damage.
:
: Except that retainers don't have blood, remember? The steal blood would
: have to go to the vampire, and I'd rule the Magnum may target either.
Actually, you may use a steal blood card on an ally according to the
revised rules:
15.3 Special Combat Effects
Steal Blood
If Steal Blood is used against an ally, the ally loses the appropriate
number of lives and the vampire stealing the blood gains the appropriate
amount in blood. An ally can be burned in this way.
I have checked, and nowhere does it specificly say you can use steal blood
against a retainer, so that is still a question. I have interpreted the
rules to mean that if you can use a steal blood to cause an ally to lose
life, then you ought to be able to use it to cause a retainer to lose
life. Perhaps that is mistaken, but there you have my reasoning.
A very strict interpretation of the rules would be that steal blood cannot
be used against a retainer, however. The ruling under retainers (stated
in my original reply to this thread) is that only ranged damage can be
dealt to retainers. And that steal blood is not damage, so therefore
cannot be dealt to retainers.
I will accpet that interpretation for why blood cannot be stolen from
retainers, but not simply because retainer son't have blood.
So, does anyone know the official ruling on whether steal blood can affect
retainers?
stephen