Rafastio Ghoul

Rafastio Ghoul [FN] Cardtype: Ally Cost: 3 pool Ghoul with 2 life. 1 bleed, 1 strength. Rafastio Ghoul can play cards requiring basic Thaumaturgy [tha] as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card would give him blood, give him life instead. Q: Does the Rafastio Ghoul act like a vampire? Can he/she play cards that require a vampire? (like a Master Skill card; Thaumaturgy) Thanks!

[ quoted text not captured ] The Ghoul can play cards that require basic thaumaturgy as a vampire. -- 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:3CE8F8EA...@white-wolf.com... > Eric wrote: > > > > Rafastio Ghoul [FN] > > Cardtype: Ally > > > > Cost: 3 pool > > > > Ghoul with 2 life. 1 bleed, 1 strength. > > Rafastio Ghoul can play cards requiring basic Thaumaturgy [tha] as a vampire > > with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood is paid with his life. If a card > > would give him blood, give him life instead. > > > > Q: Does the Rafastio Ghoul act like a vampire? Can he/she play cards that > > require a vampire? (like a Master Skill card; Thaumaturgy) > > The Ghoul can play cards that require basic thaumaturgy as a vampire. > I suppose the Rasta Ghoul could play a Router Hand then? And go to torpor afterwards? Wacky I tellz ya!

Dave Brereton wrote: > I suppose the Rasta Ghoul could play a Router Hand then? Yes. [LSJ 21-NOV-2000] > And go to torpor > afterwards? Yes. [RTR 01-MAY-2002] > Wacky I tellz ya! Which part - that he can play the card or that he is not somehow better able to handle the effects of cutting his own hand off and eye out than a vampire would be? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CE94BDB...@white-wolf.com>... > Dave Brereton wrote: > > I suppose the Rasta Ghoul could play a Router Hand then? > > Yes. [LSJ 21-NOV-2000] > > > And go to torpor > > afterwards? > > Yes. [RTR 01-MAY-2002] > > > Wacky I tellz ya! > > Which part - that he can play the card or that he is not somehow better > able to handle the effects of cutting his own hand off and eye out than > a vampire would be? there have been people who lost there hand that didn't go into a catatonic state yes it hurts a bit but they did get over it:P Well LSJ isn't Torpor a state reserved only for vampires(I also know that since the new ruling it isn't anymore)? Considering the RPG(and yes I know the RPG and the card game are two entirely difirent things) only vampires can enter torpor. Can't there be a new ruling or something that a Ally recieving agravated damage goes into coma or some sort because you can't rescue a ally in torpor.

Emile Bosman wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Which part - that he can play the card or that he is not somehow better > > able to handle the effects of cutting his own hand off and eye out than > > a vampire would be? > > there have been people who lost there hand that didn't go into a > catatonic state yes it hurts a bit but they did get over it:P You missed the question. Try again if you like. > Well LSJ isn't Torpor a state reserved only for vampires(I also know > that since the new ruling it isn't anymore)? You mean the "new" January 2000 (not May 2002) ruling? Allies have been able to enter torpor since Shadow Court Satyr was printed. > Considering the RPG(and yes I know the RPG and the card game are two > entirely difirent things) only vampires can enter torpor. Yep. > Can't there be a new ruling or something that a Ally recieving > agravated damage goes into coma or some sort because you can't rescue > a ally in torpor. As I've said quite a few times now, if errata is needed to overcome the effects of card text and the rules to satisfy the players' sensibilities about allies not being in torpor, then such errata will likely be of the form "an ally who enters torpor is burned instead." [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > As I've said quite a few times now, if errata is needed to overcome the > effects of card text and the rules to satisfy the players' sensibilities > about allies not being in torpor, then such errata will likely be of the > form "an ally who enters torpor is burned instead." Why do we need errata for this? It strikes me as being a lot simpler to just add a new rule to this effect. Or is that what you mean when you use the term "errata"? (My apologies if you've answered this question already.) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Add new rule = errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Q: Does the Rafastio Ghoul act like a vampire? Can he/she play cards > that > > > require a vampire? (like a Master Skill card; Thaumaturgy) > > > > The Ghoul can play cards that require basic thaumaturgy as a vampire. In case you can't get what LSJ has said here, yes they can play Thaumaturgy cards as if they were a vampire, but no you can't give them a Thaumaturgy skillcard so they can play the superior level of Thaumaturgy cards. Skillcards only go on Vampires, not allies. > I suppose the Rasta Ghoul could play a Router Hand then? And go to torpor > afterwards? Wacky I tellz ya! Sure, but you might as well just burn the ally, since there's no way of rescuing it (no dynamic for rescuing allies in torpor). DH Being helpful for once.