Oh yeah...one more question. I assume that a minion can use an action
card in place of it's regular abilities (hunt, bleed, etc...)...or can
they use a card AND do another thing? Also, do minions have to be
ready (untapped) in order to use a minion card? I would assume yes,
but if a minion card is in addition to normal actions, this may be
ambiguous. Along the same vein, does the playing of the minion card
tap the minion? Again, probably yes, but I want to be sure.
--
Nicholas J. Fang Interactive Systems (Media) Group
Agbaar on SCS-ML/r.g.d Computer Science/Engineering Dept.
fang@orange.cse.ogi.edu Oregon Graduate Institute-Portland, OR
In rec.games.deckmaster fang@orange.cse.ogi.edu (Nicholas Fang) writes:
>Oh yeah...one more question. I assume that a minion can use an action
>card in place of it's regular abilities (hunt, bleed, etc...)...or can
>they use a card AND do another thing? Also, do minions have to be
>ready (untapped) in order to use a minion card? I would assume yes,
>but if a minion card is in addition to normal actions, this may be
>ambiguous. Along the same vein, does the playing of the minion card
>tap the minion? Again, probably yes, but I want to be sure.
Playing a minion Action card is taking an action. Bleeding is an
action which does not require a card. Both are actions, both cause the
minion to tap, both may be blocked, both may be modified, etc. They
never state this explicitly in the rules, but it's suggested pretty
strongly by both the rules and the cards. Given this, both of your
subsequent assumptions follow immediately. This is the way I play it,
and really the only way that makes sense given the rules and cards,
IMO.
Rollie
Rotschreck: who does this card afftect? It's clear (I think...) that it
can only be used when two minions are engaged in combat, and one of them
is using aggravated damage. But if you play the card, does it affect the
*user* of the aggravated damage, or the *target* of that damage?
(I could imagine either way, see. In the first case, it's a fine
reversal-of-fortune type thing: "Ha! You thought you'd zap my minion
with your flamethrower! But you forget that, as a vampire, *you* are
afraid of fire! You flee, and my minion takes no damage!"
In the second case, it's much more of a mixed blessing. "My minion, menaced
by your flamethrower, runs like hell! He takes no damage, but goes
into hiding for a *long* time... Still, he *isn't* dead..." Or,
conversely: "I menace your minion with a flamethrower, and he flees!
He doesn't take the point of damage he would have taken, *but* he's in
torpor for much longer.")
Nosferatu Putrescence: when may this be played? It's clearly a combat card,
but it isn't a strike. If, say, Dollface gets into combat with Tusk (a
Nosferatu), can she play N.P. immediately, and take no damage from Tusk's
(now reduced) hand strikes? Does she also get a Strike against Tusk?
Can she play it even if Tusk is using a Deer Rifle and maneuvering for
range?
--
David Covin covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu
In rec.games.deckmaster covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin) writes:
>Rotschreck: who does this card afftect? It's clear (I think...) that it
>can only be used when two minions are engaged in combat, and one of them
>is using aggravated damage. But if you play the card, does it affect the
>*user* of the aggravated damage, or the *target* of that damage?
Here's what I have for the text of the card:
Rotschreck: Master - Out-of-Turn
Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
vampire, whether successfully or not. Combat ends before damage is
resolved. That vampire is put in torpor, tapped, with this card on it.
During the vampire's next untap phase, burn this card instead of
untapping the vampire.
By the text, I would say that the vampire that was to take the
aggravated damage is the vampire referenced by, "That vampire."
Justification: it explicitly states "a minion" as the one using the
aggravated damage; therefore, the phrase "vampire" does not
necessarily apply to the user of the aggravated damage (it could be an
ally), but it is necessarily valid when speaking about the target
("against a vampire").
This interpretation makes it into a way of putting a vampire which
would have gone into torpor (or potentially been burned) into torpor
for a bit longer time. Definitely more of a mixed blessing. But note
that you can use it on vampires which you do not control, which adds a
bit to its flexibility.
Whether this interpretation matches the *intent* of the card is
another question, of course.
>Nosferatu Putrescence: when may this be played? It's clearly a combat card,
>but it isn't a strike. If, say, Dollface gets into combat with Tusk (a
>Nosferatu), can she play N.P. immediately, and take no damage from Tusk's
>(now reduced) hand strikes? Does she also get a Strike against Tusk?
>Can she play it even if Tusk is using a Deer Rifle and maneuvering for
>range?
In the absence of any sort of timing rules, I'd say that a combat card
may be played at any time unless restricted by the text on the card.
Many cards say when they may be played; Nosferatu Putrescence doesn't,
so you could play it at any time. So yes, in the example Tusk's hand
damage would be reduced by 1, she would still get her strike, and it
wouldn't matter what the range was (you could play it before the
maneuver phase, e.g.).
Rollie
Matt Rollefson <rollie@next.com> wrote:
>Rotschreck: Master - Out-of-Turn
>Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
>vampire, whether successfully or not...
>By the text, I would say that the vampire that was to take the
>aggravated damage is the vampire referenced by, "That vampire."
Rotschreck sends the vampire attempting to inflict the aggravated
damage into torpor, not the vampire which would have been the
victim of that damage. The use of "minion" in the first sentence
of Rotschreck is, well, overkill, since the card doesn't do anything
to allies.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <33tnu2$bog@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>Matt Rollefson <rollie@next.com> wrote:>>Rotschreck: Master - Out-of-Turn
>>Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
>>vampire, whether successfully or not...>
>Rotschreck sends the vampire attempting to inflict the aggravated
>damage into torpor, not the vampire which would have been the
>victim of that damage. The use of "minion" in the first sentence
>of Rotschreck is, well, overkill, since the card doesn't do anything
>to allies.
Then it's *really* badly worded. If the intent was for it to affect
the *victim*, the wording on the card would be perfect as-is.
So, hm, your WotC contact says the one trying to inflict aggrivated
damage is the one going into torpor, but they've been wrong before.
Are you sure that's what was intended by the person who originally
designed that card? Is there a way to check that?
It makes some amount of sense either way. I pictured it as someone
with a flamethrower going up to a vampire and menacing them with it,
but it could also be a vampire with a flamethrower realising what he's
playing with and running screaming to hide under a rock.
--
Doug DeJulio
ddj@zardoz.elbows.org
Doug DeJulio <ddj@zardoz.elbows.org> wrote:
>So, hm, your WotC contact says the one trying to inflict aggrivated
>damage is the one going into torpor, but they've been wrong before.
>Are you sure that's what was intended by the person who originally
>designed that card? Is there a way to check that?
Everyone at WotC I've talked to says that it hoses the vampire trying
to deal the aggravated damage, not the victim of the aggravated damage.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>>>Rotschreck: Master - Out-of-Turn
>>>Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a
>>>vampire, whether successfully or not...>>
>>Rotschreck sends the vampire attempting to inflict the aggravated
>>damage into torpor, not the vampire which would have been the
>>victim of that damage. The use of "minion" in the first sentence
>>of Rotschreck is, well, overkill, since the card doesn't do anything
>>to allies.>Then it's *really* badly worded. If the intent was for it to affect
>the *victim*, the wording on the card would be perfect as-is.
Rotschreck affects the vampire on the receiving end. You have to
know about the role-playing game to know why this is obvious. White
Wolf's vampires sometimes go into animal-like frenzies where they turn
all ugly and grow fangs and claws and snarl uncontrollably. They some-
times do this when they get mad. They tear apart whoever made them so
mad, rip off their heads and start lapping up blood.
The other time they do this is when they see something they really
fear a lot. In the game, vampires fear fire like cartoon women fear
spiders. If you light a match right under a vampire's face, he may
very well shriek in terror and stop running 4 blocks away. Other things
sometimes cause this reaction -- most notably anything that can cause
damage they can't regenerate from.
To say Rotschreck affects the vampire using the attack is to say
a vampire with Protean could grow 6-inch magically-enchanced claws
before a fight and then run in fear at how dangerous it now is.
--