Red List, Trophy and Anathema

Just doing a reality-check. Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns the vamp, but want to be sure. Similar question goes for all other cards/combinations creating the same situation, eg Red List vamp at zero blood, opponent has Ghoul Retainer and a Flamethrower and range is long, choses strike 'wave' in order to get around a possible Strike: Dodge. Sten During

Sten During wrote: > Just doing a reality-check. > > Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does > opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns > the vamp, but want to be sure. If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire gets Trophied. -- 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 wrote: > Sten During wrote: > >> Just doing a reality-check. >> >> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does >> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns >> the vamp, but want to be sure. > > > If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire > gets Trophied. > Ah, ok. I think the Trophy rule may need a clarification then as it currently demands that a vampire does the burning. Eg, current text and hypothetical Sanguinius combat card only playable by a Circle member other than the one in combat: Inflict 2 aggravated damage, would have me try moving the Trophy to the non-combatant Blood Brother doing the burning. Sten During

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:36uam1F...@individual.net... > LSJ wrote: > > Sten During wrote: > > > >> Just doing a reality-check. > >> > >> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does > >> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns > >> the vamp, but want to be sure. > > > > > > If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire > > gets Trophied. > > > Ah, ok. I think the Trophy rule may need a clarification then as it > currently demands that a vampire does the burning. That's what that means, in combat. If you're in combat and your opponent burns, you burned your opponent in combat. Any other meaning is far too messy/ambiguous. > Eg, current text and hypothetical Sanguinius combat card only playable > by a Circle member other than the one in combat: Inflict 2 aggravated > damage, would have me try moving the Trophy to the non-combatant > Blood Brother doing the burning. Since he's not "in combat", he wouldn't get it. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:23:22 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Sten During wrote: >> Just doing a reality-check. >> >> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does >> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns >> the vamp, but want to be sure. > >If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire >gets Trophied. Additionally, it has been said that a trophy gained through searching the library/hand/ash heap is put at the vampire at the same time window a diablerist would gain a skill card. I've never seen anyone play Sudden Reversal on that skill - probably because it's not worth it - but anyway, could a player use Sudden on a trophy retrieved this way? best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil ----------------------------------------------------- now a "luminary", whatever it means: http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:ej7k019bgpbcdrnmb...@4ax.com... > Additionally, it has been said that a trophy gained through searching > the library/hand/ash heap is put at the vampire at the same time > window a diablerist would gain a skill card. I've never seen anyone > play Sudden Reversal on that skill - probably because it's not worth > it - but anyway, could a player use Sudden on a trophy retrieved this > way? No. Sudden can only be played on cards played in the normal fashion. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > That's what that means, in combat. Ah, I read the sentence differently. "burns a minion in combat" as that the minion being burned was "in combat", not that the one doing the burning had to be "in combat" as well, but yes, the sentence does read both ways. Sten During

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:06:05 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:36uam1F...@individual.net... >> LSJ wrote: >> > Sten During wrote: >> > >> >> Just doing a reality-check. >> >> >> >> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does >> >> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns >> >> the vamp, but want to be sure. >> > >> > >> > If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire >> > gets Trophied. >> > >> Ah, ok. I think the Trophy rule may need a clarification then as it >> currently demands that a vampire does the burning. > >That's what that means, in combat. > >If you're in combat and your opponent burns, you burned your opponent >in combat. Any other meaning is far too messy/ambiguous. Not to sound like a thicky, if a RedList w/THA and 0 blood plays Superior Burst of Sunlight, and I played a Dodge, I get a trophy? It's unlikely to happen if I do get a trophy, but if I don't, I can see it being a possibility, as Anti-Trophy tactics. As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd figure I'd ask. Morgan Vening

"Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:grnk011ocj1p68e8t...@4ax.com... > Not to sound like a thicky, if a RedList w/THA and 0 blood plays > Superior Burst of Sunlight, and I played a Dodge, I get a trophy? If he burns in the combat, yeah. > As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act > of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would > Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing > issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not > gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd > figure I'd ask. Amaranth permits a trophy. It is in-combat diablerie. [ quoted text not captured ]

Morgan Vening wrote: > As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act > of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would > Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing > issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not > gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd > figure I'd ask. Nit: Cryptic Mission doesn't trigger Anathema. Not in combat. Amaranth and (superior) Decapitate would trigger it; they're combat cards, ergo, you have to be in combat to play them. --Colin McGuigan

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:31:38 -0600, Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote: >Morgan Vening wrote: >> As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act >> of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would >> Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing >> issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not >> gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd >> figure I'd ask. > >Nit: Cryptic Mission doesn't trigger Anathema. Not in combat. Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos. >Amaranth and (superior) Decapitate would trigger it; they're combat >cards, ergo, you have to be in combat to play them. Anathema Choose a ready vampire. If the referendum is successful, put this card on that vampire. If the vampire with this card is reduced to zero blood in combat, he or she is burned, and the Methuselah controlling the opposing minion gains pool equal to the burned vampire's capacity. I don't see how. Neither reduce the vampire to zero blood, and that seems to be the trigger. the burning, and the gaining of the pool, as written, work off that. Again, techniwierdos. All games have them, to get around "Well, it SHOULD be like this, because that's more 'realistic'.". Morgan Vening

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:09:48 +1100, Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> scrawled: >On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:31:38 -0600, Colin McGuigan ><magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote: > >>Morgan Vening wrote: >>> As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act >>> of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would >>> Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing >>> issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not >>> gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd >>> figure I'd ask. >> >>Nit: Cryptic Mission doesn't trigger Anathema. Not in combat. > >Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but >reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth >do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos. > >>Amaranth and (superior) Decapitate would trigger it; they're combat >>cards, ergo, you have to be in combat to play them. > >Anathema >Choose a ready vampire. If the referendum is successful, put this card >on that vampire. If the vampire with this card is reduced to zero >blood in combat, he or she is burned, and the Methuselah controlling >the opposing minion gains pool equal to the burned vampire's capacity. > >I don't see how. Neither reduce the vampire to zero blood, and that >seems to be the trigger. i think when colin said 'trigger it', the 'it' he was referring to was Trophy, not Anathema. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:52:01 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act >>>> of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would >>>> Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing >>>> issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not >>>> gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd >>>> figure I'd ask. >>> >>>Nit: Cryptic Mission doesn't trigger Anathema. Not in combat. >> >>Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but >>reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth >>do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos. >> >>>Amaranth and (superior) Decapitate would trigger it; they're combat >>>cards, ergo, you have to be in combat to play them. >> >>Anathema >>Choose a ready vampire. If the referendum is successful, put this card >>on that vampire. If the vampire with this card is reduced to zero >>blood in combat, he or she is burned, and the Methuselah controlling >>the opposing minion gains pool equal to the burned vampire's capacity. >> >>I don't see how. Neither reduce the vampire to zero blood, and that >>seems to be the trigger. > >i think when colin said 'trigger it', the 'it' he was referring to was >Trophy, not Anathema. Ahh, fair enough. I was just meaning techniwierdos in general. The Anathema one came to mind when I was trying to figure out how to work my Brujah Prince Intercept deck, and found the technicalities surrounding Anathema to be quite counterintuitive. Morgan Vening

> Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but > reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth > do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos. > Actually, it's more techniweird than that. Diablerize without combat as an acting minion and you get the trophy. Diablerize without combat while the blocking minion and you don't get the trophy.

[ quoted text not captured ] How is "follow rules text as written" techiweird? It seems that it would be weirder to "apply" WoD sensibilities on the fly as you go along. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: : Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: :>>Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but :>>reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth :>>do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos. :> :> Actually, it's more techniweird than that. Diablerize without combat as an :> acting minion and you get the trophy. Diablerize without combat while the :> blocking minion and you don't get the trophy. : How is "follow rules text as written" techiweird? : It seems that it would be weirder to "apply" WoD sensibilities on : the fly as you go along. Nothing wrong with following the rules as they're written. Mostly that's all good when it comes to Jyhad. It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion? I can quite imagine it though.. "So, you ate a Red List?" "Yeah, I was just passing by when he.." "Oh, just passing by and seizing the moment to get some snack, eh?" "Well.. Uh.. I got keen eyes and.." "Ahem. In that case we must apply the Thorns Red List Eating Rule Revision from 1604. Accidental 'just passing by' does not get you brownie points, dude." "But.. It was a Red List, after all and I.." "Sorry. Had you snuck up into his lair in secrecy and commited this horrible deed (indeed, I must unfortunately vote against you the Blood Hunt, too), it would be a different thing." "Hey now.." "Case closed. Burning chambers are the door to your left. Next!" //T

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufilu$cj9$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... > It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when > a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of > a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be > different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by > taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion? Because one is an action. Why can you Freak to untap after one but not the other? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: : "Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufilu$cj9$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... :> It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when :> a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of :> a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be :> different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by :> taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion? : Because one is an action. : Why can you Freak to untap after one but not the other? Thought the reference was to why handling a diablerie of a Red List means different things, depending on how it is executed? Asking why you can't use Freak Drive to untap after you've blocked a minion nets you an answer of "because it says so in the card", and the correct answer to the answer is "duh, should've read it." Asking why you don't get brownie points for diablerising a Red List by blocking his/her action to raise from torpor nets you an answer of "because it says so in the card", and the correct answer to the answer is "uh, why?" Not that I mind, really. //T

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufnp8$fk6$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > : "Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufilu$cj9$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... > :> It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when > :> a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of > :> a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be > :> different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by > :> taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion? > > : Because one is an action. > : Why can you Freak to untap after one but not the other? > > Thought the reference was to why handling a diablerie of a Red List > means different things, depending on how it is executed? That seems to be what we are both addressing, yes. > Asking why you can't use Freak Drive to untap after you've blocked a > minion nets you an answer of "because it says so in the card", and the > correct answer to the answer is "duh, should've read it." > > Asking why you don't get brownie points for diablerising a Red List by > blocking his/her action to raise from torpor nets you an answer of > "because it says so in the card", and the correct answer to the answer > is "uh, why?" Why not "duh, I should've read it" (or, if "why?" is appropriate, why not "uh, why?" to the Freak Drive after block non-allowance)? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Why not "duh, I should've read it" (or, if "why?" is appropriate, > why not "uh, why?" to the Freak Drive after block non-allowance)? > I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?" How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie, they all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled out to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out? The steps for Diablerie are basically as follows: *Gain Blood & Equipment *Gain Capacity (where apropriate1) *Gain Trophies (where apropriate2) *Blood Hunt Why does "where apropriate2" read "if a Red List Minion was dialberized via Combat or (D) action" and not "if a Red List Minion was diablerized." What makes block&diablerize so different?

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005021008...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... > > Why not "duh, I should've read it" (or, if "why?" is appropriate, > > why not "uh, why?" to the Freak Drive after block non-allowance)? > > > > I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule > designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?" No, I'm not. The parallel between Freak Drive and the Trophy Rule with regards to diablerie incorporates design. Perhaps someone is missing that part of the parallel, though. > How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from > block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie, they > all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled out > to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out? Combat&Diablerize is handled via the combat part, without regard to the action, so hinging "block&" on that aspect is disingenuous. Rush&combat&diablerize, Act&getblocked&combat&diablerize, rush&combat&psyche!&combat&diablerize, act&getblocked&combat&hiddenlurker&combat&diablerize, etc. are all just different ways of saying "Amaranth is one of the ways to burn a vampire in combat; burning a Red List vampire in combat yields a Trophy opportunity." Parallel: How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from (D)iablerize for Freak Drive? (Reducing the concept of "act" to just the special case of diablerie, similar (parallel) to above). That is, what is the backstory justification for allowing Freak after an action but not after a block? > The steps for Diablerie are basically as follows: > > *Gain Blood & Equipment > *Gain Capacity (where apropriate1) > *Gain Trophies (where apropriate2) > *Blood Hunt > > Why does "where apropriate2" read "if a Red List Minion was dialberized > via Combat or (D) action" and not "if a Red List Minion was diablerized." > > What makes block&diablerize so different? It isn't burning the RL as a (D) action or in combat. See also "What make block&diablerize so different from (D)iablerize where Freak Drive is concerned?" [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > i think when colin said 'trigger it', the 'it' he was referring to was > Trophy, not Anathema. Yes. Sorry for the confusion. --Colin McGuigan

> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule > designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?" > > How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from > block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie, they > all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled out > to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out? I don't think it was designed that way. Diablerie is included among the possible (D) actions or combat effects which allow you to burn an opposing minion (and gain a trophy), as opposed to starting with diablerie gaining you a trophy and then saying "Oh, incidentally, other (D) actions and combat burning also allow you to get trophies." In other words, the rule could have had three cases (diablerie, burn in combat, burn as (D) action). Instead it has two (burn in combat, burn as (D) action). The idea was probably that hunting down and destroying a Red List minion or defeating them in glorious combat were the ways to gain trophies, and sometimes this includes diablerie. John

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: : "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005021008...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... :> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule :> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?" : No, I'm not. : The parallel between Freak Drive and the Trophy Rule with : regards to diablerie incorporates design. Perhaps someone : is missing that part of the parallel, though. This persistance in not acknowledging the difference between diableries in different cases leads at least me to believe that it was left out by an accident, rather than design. I'd get grumpy if I'd notice something like that afterwards. I might buy a reasoning that Block & Diab has been excluded, so that a lone Red List vampire wouldn't be blocked during the action to raise from torpor - at least not only to get the shiny Trophies lying on the table. Might be a viable design reason behind the exclusion, I don't know. This might do for a reasoning, rather than a silly explanation of "You can't get Trophies by Block & Diab just like you can't use Freak Drive after a block - because Freak Drive is an Action Modifier." //T

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufrcs$hoj$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > : "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005021008...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... > :> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule > :> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?" > : No, I'm not. > : The parallel between Freak Drive and the Trophy Rule with > : regards to diablerie incorporates design. Perhaps someone > : is missing that part of the parallel, though. > > This persistance in not acknowledging the difference between > diableries in different cases leads at least me to believe that it was > left out by an accident, rather than design. I'd get grumpy if I'd > notice something like that afterwards. Heh. The persistence you perceive is imagined. I have already acknowledged that they are different - for instance, one doesn't allow a Trophy opportunity (that one being not a (D) action and not a combat). > I might buy a reasoning that Block & Diab has been excluded, so that > a lone Red List vampire wouldn't be blocked during the action to raise > from torpor - at least not only to get the shiny Trophies lying on the > table. Might be a viable design reason behind the exclusion, I don't > know. > > This might do for a reasoning, rather than a silly explanation of "You > can't get Trophies by Block & Diab just like you can't use Freak Drive after > a block - because Freak Drive is an Action Modifier." Use whatever reasoning you dream up. That goes only to further support the Freak Drive parallel (which can similarly be reasoned away, by parallel reasoning, even). [ quoted text not captured ]

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > > I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule > designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?" > > How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from > block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie, they > all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled out > to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out? Perhaps for reasons of game balance. > The steps for Diablerie are basically as follows: > > *Gain Blood & Equipment > *Gain Capacity (where apropriate1) > *Gain Trophies (where apropriate2) > *Blood Hunt > > Why does "where apropriate2" read "if a Red List Minion was dialberized > via Combat or (D) action" and not "if a Red List Minion was diablerized." > > What makes block&diablerize so different? First and foremost, you need to remember that this is a _card game_, and not 'a roleplaying game played with cards'. Decisions are made first based on the card-game effects and then (to a much lesser extent) on how the semi-arbitrary flavor of the cards holds up to role-playing justifications. If you need a roleplaying justification, think of it like this: if you happen to stumble across a momentarily-vulnerable Red List minion totally by accident and eat him, no elder is going to give you the same respect as if you had set out to hunt him down where he lives and taken him out as a deliberate course of action and/or bested him in single combat. -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1108050316.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > If you need a roleplaying justification, think of it like this: if you > happen to stumble across a momentarily-vulnerable Red List minion > totally by accident and eat him, no elder is going to give you the same > respect as if you had set out to hunt him down where he lives and taken > him out as a deliberate course of action and/or bested him in single > combat. And remember that in the RPG, diablerizing a Red List gets you only one reward: a place on the Red List yourself. Sending a Red List to Final Death is OK. Taking his powerful blood to yourself makes you a threat, just as he was. [ quoted text not captured ]

> First and foremost, you need to remember that this is a _card game_, > and not 'a roleplaying game played with cards'. Decisions are made > first based on the card-game effects and then (to a much lesser extent) > on how the semi-arbitrary flavor of the cards holds up to role-playing > justifications. > > If you need a roleplaying justification, think of it like this: if you > happen to stumble across a momentarily-vulnerable Red List minion > totally by accident and eat him, no elder is going to give you the same > respect as if you had set out to hunt him down where he lives and taken > him out as a deliberate course of action and/or bested him in single > combat. > I don't care what the reasoning is. I just want to know what it is.

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message > I don't care what the reasoning is. I just want to know what it is. Trophies are for (D) action burnings and combat burnings. They shouldn't be for diablerie, as noted already. But that was too much unnecessary complication (and too stifling as well), so diablerie was accepted (and made explicit in an attempt to avoid having people wonder about it). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Feb 2005 06:27:05 -0800, <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote: > In other words, the rule could have had three cases (diablerie, burn in > combat, burn as (D) action). Instead it has two (burn in combat, burn > as (D) action). The idea was probably that hunting down and destroying > a Red List minion or defeating them in glorious combat were the ways to > gain trophies, and sometimes this includes diablerie. Well said. The active effort of hunting down the vampire is a good point. It's not flawless, as combat can occur when blocking or being blocked, but it goes as far an RPG parallel should IMHO. -- Bye, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Ummm.. I meant either/or. Either you have hunted down and burned the minion as a (D) action, or, however you entered combat, you engaged it in glorious battle and not only emerged victorious, but destroyed your opponent utterly. You don't get trophies without active hunting and/or glorious battle. John

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > And remember that in the RPG, diablerizing a Red List gets you > only one reward: a place on the Red List yourself. > > Sending a Red List to Final Death is OK. Taking his powerful > blood to yourself makes you a threat, just as he was. Hmm, I think this may be wrong, Scott. I believe diablerizing a Red List vampire (or a Bloodhunted vampire in general) is an exception to the rule against Camarilla diablerie. I know that one of the reasons that other vampires join the hunt is that it's the one chance they can get to diablerize another vampire without being prosecuted. Or does this vary by domain? It's been a few years. Kind of irrelevant to your argument, but I'll throw it out there anyway. Cheers, WES

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:09:50 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] As far as I remember, the right to diablerize a Red List vampire is granted in a case-by-case basis when the hunt begins - hence the trophy for 'sanctioned diablerie' mentioned in the Quarterly's article. But free diablerie is not a norm in regard to the Red Listers (that is more usual on local Blood Hunts, unless explicit proihibited. These often involve lesser vampires than the Red Listers, and provide less risks of a given vampire becoming overpowered). I have the impression that Valerius Maior was included in the List exactly because of that. He is a former Alastor who diablerized one or two Red List targets he encountered. Have to flip through the Gehenna book to check the details, though. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil -------------------------------------- Now a "luminary", whatever it means: http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

> Hmm, I think this may be wrong, Scott. I believe diablerizing a Red List > vampire (or a Bloodhunted vampire in general) is an exception to the rule > against Camarilla diablerie. > Not exactly. > I know that one of the reasons that other vampires join the hunt is that > it's the one chance they can get to diablerize another vampire without being > prosecuted. > That's correct. If you really want the generation or the disciplines, they will Emrace a vampire of equivalent generation for you to Diablerize. You need look no further than what went on between Tremere and Goratrix to know that Diablerie of a Red List vampire does not necessarily end the threat.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, in designing the set, I took the novel approach of reading the source material first. :-) "The sureset way to become an Anathema is to commit diablerie on one". [KMW p12] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote . > > Well, in designing the set, I took the novel approach of reading > the source material first. :-) I want your job. Can I have your job? (Except for the rules-y stuff. I would suck at that part.) > "The sureset way to become an Anathema is to commit diablerie on one". > [KMW p12] Ok, you win. :) Cheers, WES

In message <cuibe...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> writes: >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote . >> >> Well, in designing the set, I took the novel approach of reading >> the source material first. :-) > >I want your job. Can I have your job? I can pay you one shiny penny a week to be a hatstand, if it'll help. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/