Howdy:
My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
want to be the predator who does this.
After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)? I wasn't sure,
since I do know that I can no longer block (since that decision is
irreversible), but what about a simple little reaction card?
Thanks,
Bill
/----------------------------------------------------\
| wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu |
| "Gotta have a friend in Jesus." - Norman Greenbaum |
\----------------------------------------------------/
Howdy:
My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
want to be the predator who does this.
After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)? I wasn't sure,
since I do know that I can no longer block (since that decision is
irreversible), but what about a simple little reaction card?
Thanks,
Bill
/----------------------------------------------------\
| wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu |
| "Gotta have a friend in Jesus." - Norman Greenbaum |
\----------------------------------------------------/
William Bock (wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu) wrote:
> My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
> Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
> another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
> want to be the predator who does this.
I think the ruling is no. (thank g*d). It's still the same action (even
with another vampire) so you can't use two threat/bond/conditioning.
> After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
> and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)? I wasn't sure,
> since I do know that I can no longer block (since that decision is
> irreversible), but what about a simple little reaction card?
That would be fine. It's really nice when you can deflect a large bleed
and oust your prey, courtesy of your predator.
-ben
--
"I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tann-
hauser gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."
William Bock (wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu) wrote:
> My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
> Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
> another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
> want to be the predator who does this.
I think the ruling is no. (thank g*d). It's still the same action (even
with another vampire) so you can't use two threat/bond/conditioning.
> After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
> and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)? I wasn't sure,
> since I do know that I can no longer block (since that decision is
> irreversible), but what about a simple little reaction card?
That would be fine. It's really nice when you can deflect a large bleed
and oust your prey, courtesy of your predator.
-ben
--
"I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tann-
hauser gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."
William Bock <wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu> wrote:
> My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
> Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
> another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
> want to be the predator who does this.
As far as I know it is possible for both minions to use the same
action modifier. This is on the list of questions sent to the design
team, and hasn't been answered yet.
> After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
> and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)?...
Sure. Just because you don't block, doesn't mean you can't react. Note
that using Deflection will give the new player a chance to block, even if
the time for blocking has otherwise passed (card text).
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
William Bock <wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu> wrote:
> My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
> Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
> another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
> want to be the predator who does this.
As far as I know it is possible for both minions to use the same
action modifier. This is on the list of questions sent to the design
team, and hasn't been answered yet.
> After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
> and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)?...
Sure. Just because you don't block, doesn't mean you can't react. Note
that using Deflection will give the new player a chance to block, even if
the time for blocking has otherwise passed (card text).
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <3ab7ta$9nf@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>William Bock <wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu> wrote:>> My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
>> Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
>> another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
>> want to be the predator who does this.>
>As far as I know it is possible for both minions to use the same
>action modifier. This is on the list of questions sent to the design
>team, and hasn't been answered yet.
>
Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
on that action, even though it was a different minion.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3ab7ta$9nf@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>William Bock <wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu> wrote:>> My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
>> Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
>> another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
>> want to be the predator who does this.>
>As far as I know it is possible for both minions to use the same
>action modifier. This is on the list of questions sent to the design
>team, and hasn't been answered yet.
>
Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
on that action, even though it was a different minion.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
>the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
>where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
>that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
>on that action, even though it was a different minion.
Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
>the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
>where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
>that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
>on that action, even though it was a different minion.
Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
William Bock (wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu) wrote:
: Howdy:: My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
: Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
: another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
: want to be the predator who does this.
I would have to say I don't think this is legal. Only *one* of any kind of
action modifier on any *single* action. Technically speaking I would consider
this only *one* action. I would say this is confirmed with the decision that
if a minion takes over with Mask of K Faces he can complete the action
*even* if the action was started by a library card with a discipline the
masking minion does not posses. This is clearly only *one* action (you
think I have said that enough) and hence only one of any kind of action
modifier can be applied (as well as abiding by the only one Bonding,
Conditioning or Threats) card.
: After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
: and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)? I wasn't sure,
: since I do know that I can no longer block (since that decision is
: irreversible), but what about a simple little reaction card?
I would say that a reaction card is perfectly legal to play, even if
you have already forfieted your chance to block. (This is dosn't mean
that I think you could play a reaction card that, say untaps a minion
so that he can block, at this point all blocking is out and only
reactions that don't need a block to be effective should be allowed).
: Thanks,
: Bill
: /----------------------------------------------------\
: | wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu |
: | "Gotta have a friend in Jesus." - Norman Greenbaum |
: \----------------------------------------------------/
-
No Problem,
Paul
-
/===================================================\
| Paul Jensen |
| pjensen@orion.it.luc.edu |
| Chicago, IL |
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Good advertising space for rent |
| (It must be pretty good YOU just read it) |
\===================================================/
William Bock (wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu) wrote:
: Howdy:: My predator decides to bleed me. I don't block, so he plays a superior
: Conditioning (+3 Bleed), Mask of 1000 Faces with another vampire, and
: another superior Conditioning. Is this legal? I hope so, since I
: want to be the predator who does this.
I would have to say I don't think this is legal. Only *one* of any kind of
action modifier on any *single* action. Technically speaking I would consider
this only *one* action. I would say this is confirmed with the decision that
if a minion takes over with Mask of K Faces he can complete the action
*even* if the action was started by a library card with a discipline the
masking minion does not posses. This is clearly only *one* action (you
think I have said that enough) and hence only one of any kind of action
modifier can be applied (as well as abiding by the only one Bonding,
Conditioning or Threats) card.
: After the second Conditioning, could I, as the prey, play a Deflection
: and have the 7 bleed go on _my_ prey (if I so chose)? I wasn't sure,
: since I do know that I can no longer block (since that decision is
: irreversible), but what about a simple little reaction card?
I would say that a reaction card is perfectly legal to play, even if
you have already forfieted your chance to block. (This is dosn't mean
that I think you could play a reaction card that, say untaps a minion
so that he can block, at this point all blocking is out and only
reactions that don't need a block to be effective should be allowed).
: Thanks,
: Bill
: /----------------------------------------------------\
: | wbock@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu |
: | "Gotta have a friend in Jesus." - Norman Greenbaum |
: \----------------------------------------------------/
-
No Problem,
Paul
-
/===================================================\
| Paul Jensen |
| pjensen@orion.it.luc.edu |
| Chicago, IL |
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Good advertising space for rent |
| (It must be pretty good YOU just read it) |
\===================================================/
In article <3abi17$c3f@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
>the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
>where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
>that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
>on that action, even though it was a different minion.
Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
Of course, you shouldn't forget that Bonding/Conditioning/Threats all
EXPLICITLY say that you cannot use more that one of them in a given action.
It doesn't say a minion cannot use more than one, it says that more than one
cannot be used.
-- Chris Clark
--
@>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,--
-- Chris Clark
"Claudia, you've been a very...very...naughty...little...girl."
-Lestat
In article <3abi17$c3f@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
>the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
>where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
>that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
>on that action, even though it was a different minion.
Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
Of course, you shouldn't forget that Bonding/Conditioning/Threats all
EXPLICITLY say that you cannot use more that one of them in a given action.
It doesn't say a minion cannot use more than one, it says that more than one
cannot be used.
-- Chris Clark
--
@>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,-- @>-`--,--
-- Chris Clark
"Claudia, you've been a very...very...naughty...little...girl."
-Lestat
In article <3abi17$c3f@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
>be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
>"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
>the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
>multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
>
Yes, I agree with you 100% on that. Bonding/Conditioning/Threats,
however, says that no more than one of them may be used on any one
*action*, and Mask states that the *same* action continues, so if
B/C/T has been used, the clause still applies. The new minion, while
able to use Lost in Crowds even if the other guy used it, cannot use
B/C/T if the other guy used it, since it's already been used on that
action.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3abi17$c3f@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
>be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
>"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
>the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
>multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
>
Yes, I agree with you 100% on that. Bonding/Conditioning/Threats,
however, says that no more than one of them may be used on any one
*action*, and Mask states that the *same* action continues, so if
B/C/T has been used, the clause still applies. The new minion, while
able to use Lost in Crowds even if the other guy used it, cannot use
B/C/T if the other guy used it, since it's already been used on that
action.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>>Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
>>be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
>>"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
>>the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
>>multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.>Yes, I agree with you 100% on that. Bonding/Conditioning/Threats,
>however, says that no more than one of them may be used on any one *action*...
And I'm interpreting that to mean that if you, for example, play Bonding
to modify an action, then Conditioning or Threats may not be used on that
action, but there's nothing stopping you from playing another Bonding if you
can manage it somehow (such as with the Mask). We'll see if the
design team agrees.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>>Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
>>be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
>>"a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
>>the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
>>multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.>Yes, I agree with you 100% on that. Bonding/Conditioning/Threats,
>however, says that no more than one of them may be used on any one *action*...
And I'm interpreting that to mean that if you, for example, play Bonding
to modify an action, then Conditioning or Threats may not be used on that
action, but there's nothing stopping you from playing another Bonding if you
can manage it somehow (such as with the Mask). We'll see if the
design team agrees.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <3adoq5$gia@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>>Yes, I agree with you 100% on that. Bonding/Conditioning/Threats,
>>however, says that no more than one of them may be used on any one *action*...>
>And I'm interpreting that to mean that if you, for example, play Bonding
>to modify an action, then Conditioning or Threats may not be used on that
>action, but there's nothing stopping you from playing another Bonding if you
>can manage it somehow (such as with the Mask). We'll see if the
>design team agrees.
>
Oh, I see what you're saying! You're saying that the phrase means that
only one [type] of Bonding/Conditioning/Threats can be used on any one
action. I'm saying that only one [modifier] of B/C/T can be used, which
is the impression that I got from the jyhad-l list. I can see where
you'd want a rules team ruling on that. Gotcha!
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3adoq5$gia@perv.hal.COM>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>>Yes, I agree with you 100% on that. Bonding/Conditioning/Threats,
>>however, says that no more than one of them may be used on any one *action*...>
>And I'm interpreting that to mean that if you, for example, play Bonding
>to modify an action, then Conditioning or Threats may not be used on that
>action, but there's nothing stopping you from playing another Bonding if you
>can manage it somehow (such as with the Mask). We'll see if the
>design team agrees.
>
Oh, I see what you're saying! You're saying that the phrase means that
only one [type] of Bonding/Conditioning/Threats can be used on any one
action. I'm saying that only one [modifier] of B/C/T can be used, which
is the impression that I got from the jyhad-l list. I can see where
you'd want a rules team ruling on that. Gotcha!
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote:
> Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
> >Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
> >the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
> >where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
> >that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
> >on that action, even though it was a different minion.> Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
> be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
> "a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
> the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
> multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
Yes but remember that only ONE of bonding, conditioning, or threats may
be played in the *same action*. Unfortunately this means that mask can
only really be used to add vampire's special +1 bleed to any combo that
already includes conditioning.
Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote:
> Joe Cochran <jsciv@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
> >Actually, Beth has noted that while the new minion can (we think) use
> >the same mod., Mask specifically states that the same action continues
> >where it left off, and so the Bonding/Conditioning/Threats clause means
> >that the new minion can't use that modifier since it's already been used
> >on that action, even though it was a different minion.> Note that the rulebook says: "The same action modifier card type cannot
> be used twice by a minion during the same action." I'm interpreting
> "a minion" to mean "any given minion", i.e., different minions could use
> the same modifier if they wanted. For example, it has been ruled that
> multiple minions may each modify an action via superior Cloak the Gathering.
Yes but remember that only ONE of bonding, conditioning, or threats may
be played in the *same action*. Unfortunately this means that mask can
only really be used to add vampire's special +1 bleed to any combo that
already includes conditioning.
: >And I'm interpreting that to mean that if you, for example, play Bonding
: >to modify an action, then Conditioning or Threats may not be used on that
Can bonding be used to modify an action other than a bleed? i.e. Could I
call a vote and use the superior version of bonding to give it +1 stealth?
--
Corris Cook & /\ Alex Robinson
.................../....\.....................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /~~~~~~~;\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
*RUSH* rocks /___________\;;;;;;<dIRE sTRAITS is the wAY>;;;
: >And I'm interpreting that to mean that if you, for example, play Bonding
: >to modify an action, then Conditioning or Threats may not be used on that
Can bonding be used to modify an action other than a bleed? i.e. Could I
call a vote and use the superior version of bonding to give it +1 stealth?
--
Corris Cook & /\ Alex Robinson
.................../....\.....................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /~~~~~~~;\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
*RUSH* rocks /___________\;;;;;;<dIRE sTRAITS is the wAY>;;;
Before I could do anything to stop it, Anonymous Fan Mailers wrote:
> Can bonding be used to modify an action other than a bleed? i.e. Could I
> call a vote and use the superior version of bonding to give it +1 stealth?
No.
--
He did not wear his scarlet cloat, | a-Henh!
For blood and wine are red, | Brian Wilson
And blood and wine were on his hands |
When they found him with the dead. |
|
Oscar Wilde |
Before I could do anything to stop it, Anonymous Fan Mailers wrote:
> Can bonding be used to modify an action other than a bleed? i.e. Could I
> call a vote and use the superior version of bonding to give it +1 stealth?
No.
--
He did not wear his scarlet cloat, | a-Henh!
For blood and wine are red, | Brian Wilson
And blood and wine were on his hands |
When they found him with the dead. |
|
Oscar Wilde |
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Marissa Camacho wrote:
> Why can't bonding be used to alter a non-bleed action? It is an action
> modifier, and I do not beleive that WotC has released any erratta saying that
> Bonding can only be used on bleed actions.
>
> The Card Reads:
> +1 bleed and +1 stealth blah... blah... blah...
>
> Nowhere on the card does it state... May only be used on bleed actions.
> Could we have Tom check this one over?
Well, it *does* say +1 BLEED. How much more explicit can it get?
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Marissa Camacho wrote:
> Why can't bonding be used to alter a non-bleed action? It is an action
> modifier, and I do not beleive that WotC has released any erratta saying that
> Bonding can only be used on bleed actions.
>
> The Card Reads:
> +1 bleed and +1 stealth blah... blah... blah...
>
> Nowhere on the card does it state... May only be used on bleed actions.
> Could we have Tom check this one over?
Well, it *does* say +1 BLEED. How much more explicit can it get?
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Marissa Camacho wrote:
> You didn't even answer the question. Yes, the card does say +1 bleed, but
> there is nothing in the rules or on the card which states that Bonding must be
> used on a bleed action. The card is an action modifier with a legitimate
> target, an therefore should be able to be used on a non-bleed action. If my
> interpretation is wrong, then it should be posted as either card-erratta, or as
> a revision in the rules. But as it stands now, Bonding should be able to be
> used for either bleed, stealth, or both.
Play it how you want it, Marissa. Bend the rules any way you want. Try to
play it that way at my table and it won't wash. But if it plays at your
table, more power to you. Call WotC and ask them. I don't see where it
needs errata, since it reads quite clearly to me (why else would it tell
you that you can't play it with Threats or Conditioning if it wasn't a
Bleed modifier?), but for some people everything must be spelled out.
Hey, have fun.
Brian
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Marissa Camacho wrote:
> You didn't even answer the question. Yes, the card does say +1 bleed, but
> there is nothing in the rules or on the card which states that Bonding must be
> used on a bleed action. The card is an action modifier with a legitimate
> target, an therefore should be able to be used on a non-bleed action. If my
> interpretation is wrong, then it should be posted as either card-erratta, or as
> a revision in the rules. But as it stands now, Bonding should be able to be
> used for either bleed, stealth, or both.
Play it how you want it, Marissa. Bend the rules any way you want. Try to
play it that way at my table and it won't wash. But if it plays at your
table, more power to you. Call WotC and ask them. I don't see where it
needs errata, since it reads quite clearly to me (why else would it tell
you that you can't play it with Threats or Conditioning if it wasn't a
Bleed modifier?), but for some people everything must be spelled out.
Hey, have fun.
Brian
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Marissa Camacho wrote:
> Excuse me BRIAN, but there's no reason to be a prick about a hazy part of the
> rules. If the rules are so clear to you then why don't you enlighten us a
> little? Where in the rules, errata, or on the cards does it ever specify what
> action cards (or actions) a particular action modifier can be used with? Yes,
> Bonding cannot be used with Conditioning or Threats, but that it to prevent
> MEGA bleeds from a Conditioning/Threats/Bonding combo, not because it is a
> specific bleed card. Don't mistake your perception of the rules for what the
> rules actually are. Action modifiers alter actions, regardless of what they
> are. You can use Lost in Crowds whether you are bleeding, equiping, hunting,
> or visiting in torpor. Why then , can you not use Bonding in a similar
> situation? So what is you don't need the +1 bleed? You still should get the
> stealth from the card.
Play it how you want it.
> If WotC disagrees with this reading of the rules, then they should post so.
> But if Bonding can only be used with bleed actions, then it should be treated
> as errata, as there is no place in any of the rules which states otherwise.
Play it how you want it.
> And as for playing at YOUR TABLE, oh great professor of Jyhad common sense....
> I wouldn't stoop so low. I tend to expect a little higher level of respect
> and consideration between players. Don't talk down to other players, it does
> nothing but make you look like a particular four-legged pack animal.
Cool.
> Just a bit of real life common sense, mi amigo.
> (by the by, the person who posted the message you decided to burn wasn't
> Marissa; my name's David, so if you're going to condescend, atleast use my
> name.)
Sorry, David.
> ;-)
Oh, thanks for the smiley. :)
Brian
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Marissa Camacho wrote:
> Excuse me BRIAN, but there's no reason to be a prick about a hazy part of the
> rules. If the rules are so clear to you then why don't you enlighten us a
> little? Where in the rules, errata, or on the cards does it ever specify what
> action cards (or actions) a particular action modifier can be used with? Yes,
> Bonding cannot be used with Conditioning or Threats, but that it to prevent
> MEGA bleeds from a Conditioning/Threats/Bonding combo, not because it is a
> specific bleed card. Don't mistake your perception of the rules for what the
> rules actually are. Action modifiers alter actions, regardless of what they
> are. You can use Lost in Crowds whether you are bleeding, equiping, hunting,
> or visiting in torpor. Why then , can you not use Bonding in a similar
> situation? So what is you don't need the +1 bleed? You still should get the
> stealth from the card.
Play it how you want it.
> If WotC disagrees with this reading of the rules, then they should post so.
> But if Bonding can only be used with bleed actions, then it should be treated
> as errata, as there is no place in any of the rules which states otherwise.
Play it how you want it.
> And as for playing at YOUR TABLE, oh great professor of Jyhad common sense....
> I wouldn't stoop so low. I tend to expect a little higher level of respect
> and consideration between players. Don't talk down to other players, it does
> nothing but make you look like a particular four-legged pack animal.
Cool.
> Just a bit of real life common sense, mi amigo.
> (by the by, the person who posted the message you decided to burn wasn't
> Marissa; my name's David, so if you're going to condescend, atleast use my
> name.)
Sorry, David.
> ;-)
Oh, thanks for the smiley. :)
Brian
>> Why can't bonding be used to alter a non-bleed action? It is an action
>> modifier, and I do not beleive that WotC has released any erratta saying that
>> Bonding can only be used on bleed actions.
>>
>> Nowhere on the card does it state... May only be used on bleed actions.
>> Could we have Tom check this one over?
Actually, one of the last rulings I read from Tom before he left for the
holiday is that an action modifier must directly apply to the action
it is modifying, so you can't use a bleed modifier on a non-bleed action.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
>> Why can't bonding be used to alter a non-bleed action? It is an action
>> modifier, and I do not beleive that WotC has released any erratta saying that
>> Bonding can only be used on bleed actions.
>>
>> Nowhere on the card does it state... May only be used on bleed actions.
>> Could we have Tom check this one over?
Actually, one of the last rulings I read from Tom before he left for the
holiday is that an action modifier must directly apply to the action
it is modifying, so you can't use a bleed modifier on a non-bleed action.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | jsciv@vt.edu
| ** csipga@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK