A few questions

On VTES-L, seanmill wrote: > Lets say Quentin who has +1 hand damage as a natual ability equips himself Quentin (and all vampires with innate "+N hand damage") treats the bonus as a bonus to his innate strength. ("Strength" is the term used to denote a minion's base amount of damage.) > with B.N Tigers claws which give him +2 hand damage. If he stikes with the B.N. Tiger Claws can be used to strike for strength+2 damage. (A similar interpretation applies to all other melee weapons that deal damage based on the minion's "hand damage".) > claws is his damage three (just the +2 for the claws) or does it include his He deals 4 damage: 2 (his base hand damage, his strength) +2 = 4 > natural +1 as well? Also if he struck with B.N. can he play Wolf's Claws or > Claws of the Dead to make his damage aggravated (ie is attacking with B.N. a > hand strike since it says +2 hand damage or is it a regular weapon strike?) No strikes with weapons are hand strikes, so the damage they inflict is not hand damage. That weapon damage is not made aggravated by Claws (or Basilia's ability, etc.). > Question Two: Are multiple Mass Realities cumulative? Yes. > Question Three: If a vampire is attempting to rescue himself from Torpor and > is blocked does he still spend two blood and does combat occur or does he > just go back to Torpor? From the revised rulebook (see link in .sig): 6.5.2. Leave Torpor action (+1 stealth) If this action is blocked, there is no combat (vampires in torpor cannot enter combat). Instead, if the blocker is a vampire, he gets the opportunity to diablerize the acting vampire (see Diablerie, sec. 6.5.5). If he chooses not to, or if he is an ally, then the action simply fails (the acting vampire remains in torpor and no cost is paid). > Lastly: If I have no vampires in my uncontrolled region yet I have the > Arcane Library. I spend all four of my transfers and a pool to bring out a > new vamp (who happens to be a Tremere, can I tap the Arcane Library to > immediatly put a blood on him...or is my influece phase over the minute I > pull him out from my crypt? Your influence phase is not over until you are finished with it. You can tap the Arcane Library to put a counter on the new vampire. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote in article <37B2B584...@wizards.com>... [snip beginning of question] > > natural +1 as well? Also if he struck with B.N. can he play Wolf's Claws or > > Claws of the Dead to make his damage aggravated (ie is attacking with B.N. a > > hand strike since it says +2 hand damage or is it a regular weapon strike?) > > No strikes with weapons are hand strikes, so the damage they inflict is > not hand damage. That weapon damage is not made aggravated by Claws (or > Basilia's ability, etc.). OK, so let me get this straight in my thick skull. B.N. Tiger Claws is a weapon that gives a minion "+2 _hand damage_", but weapon strikes cannot be "hand" strikes. OK. So, if weapon strikes are not "hand" strikes, why does Quintin still get his innate bonus "hand damage"? And since he _does_ get that bonus, can't Wolf Claws be used to make at least that portion (the innate portion) of the damage aggravated? Allowing Quintin to tack on his innate "hand damage" bonus but not allowing him to use modifiers applicable to "hand damage" seems completely contradictory to me. The rule should be either: (1) B.N. strikes are weapon strikes, so Quintin's bonus "hand damage" does not apply and "hand damage" modifiers cannot be played, or (2) the _entire_ B.N. Tiger Claws strike is hand damage (because of B.N. Tiger Claws card text) which is added to Quintin's inherent +1 hand damage and which can entirely be modified by hand damage modifiers like Wolf Claws (giving him 4 aggro "hand damage"). The current rule seems unecessarily confusing and doesn't make much sense to me anyways. Why can't weapons like B.N. Tiger Claws (that increase "hand damage") be treated as additions to a minion's innate strength (like Depravity)? Under the current rule (using a minion's innate strength with weapon strikes but not calling it hand damage), Quintin may as well be allowed to tack on his base damage when striking with _any_ weapon at close range (.44, chainsaw, etc.). Just my thoughts (and I'm sure this point has been discussed before), KM

Kristyl Meth wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote in article > <37B2B584...@wizards.com>... > > [snip beginning of question] > > > > natural +1 as well? Also if he struck with B.N. can he play Wolf's > Claws or > > > Claws of the Dead to make his damage aggravated (ie is attacking with > B.N. a > > > hand strike since it says +2 hand damage or is it a regular weapon > strike?) > > > > No strikes with weapons are hand strikes, so the damage they inflict is > > not hand damage. That weapon damage is not made aggravated by Claws (or > > Basilia's ability, etc.). > > OK, so let me get this straight in my thick skull. B.N. Tiger Claws is a > weapon that gives a minion "+2 _hand damage_", but weapon strikes cannot be It is a weapon that can be used to strike. A strike with that weapon inflicts an amount of damage equal to two plus the bearer's (innate) hand damage. The template is not as good at getting this notion across as it could be. Treat it as "Strike: Strength+2 damage" (meaning that it gives the bearer a new strike option). The ruling is that melee weapons strength bonuses only apply when striking with the weapon. > "hand" strikes. OK. So, if weapon strikes are not "hand" strikes, why > does Quintin still get his innate bonus "hand damage"? And since he _does_ Because the melee weapon does an amount of damage based on the bearer's innate hand damage (his "strength"). > get that bonus, can't Wolf Claws be used to make at least that portion (the > innate portion) of the damage aggravated? Allowing Quintin to tack on his > innate "hand damage" bonus but not allowing him to use modifiers applicable > to "hand damage" seems completely contradictory to me. That's because the rules and cards are using "hand damage" to mean two different things: the amount of damage a minion would do with a hand strike and the type of damage done by a hand strike. Quinton's bonus applies to the former. Claws apply to the latter. The revised rules use "strength" instead of "hand damage" for the former, but of course the printed cards haven't been updated to reflect that. > The rule should be either: (1) B.N. strikes are weapon strikes, so > Quintin's bonus "hand damage" does not apply and "hand damage" modifiers It is a weapon strike that inficts an amount of damage based on the striking minion's strength. > cannot be played, or (2) the _entire_ B.N. Tiger Claws strike is hand > damage (because of B.N. Tiger Claws card text) which is added to Quintin's > inherent +1 hand damage and which can entirely be modified by hand damage > modifiers like Wolf Claws (giving him 4 aggro "hand damage"). The current The damage done by a weapon strike is weapon damage. The damage done by a hand strike is hand damage. Claws make the latter aggravated. They do not affect the former. > rule seems unecessarily confusing and doesn't make much sense to me > anyways. Why can't weapons like B.N. Tiger Claws (that increase "hand > damage") be treated as additions to a minion's innate strength (like > Depravity)? Under the current rule (using a minion's innate strength with Because your claws aren't connecting when you strike with a weapon - the weapon is. When you connect with a weapon, no one cares if your fingernails are properly trimmed or not. > weapon strikes but not calling it hand damage), Quintin may as well be > allowed to tack on his base damage when striking with _any_ weapon at close > range (.44, chainsaw, etc.). .44's and Chainsaws do not deal damage based on how hard you "hit" with them, so are not written to be based on strength ("hand damage [1]"). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote in article <37B2E7E9...@wizards.com>... > .44's and Chainsaws do not deal damage based on how hard you "hit" with > them, so are not written to be based on strength ("hand damage [1]"). This was the statement that finally clicked with me conceptually. Just pretend as if the card text says "equal to hand damage + 2" instead of "+2 hand damage." Got it. KM

To KM, The way the mechanic was intended to work, as I see it, was as follows; 1. Weapons that inflict greater damage when wielded by a stronger than average opponent should reflect this in the way the game mechanic functions. Thus, for many melee weapons, this is represented as Strike: +X hand damage. 2. Weapons that involve a mechanic other than the strength of the wielder for inflicting damage, eg. Guns, should not gain the benefit of additional strength of the wielder. 3. Special effects which revolve around the actual inflicting of damage with the bare hands of the acting minion (Burning Wrath, Claws, etc.) should _not_ be allowed to carry their benefit through if the strike is done with a melee weapon. Said differently, you've got to get their flesh under your Claws if you want the damage to be aggravated. Likewise, you shouldn't gain the benefit of a Bastard Sword's additional damage if yo uaren't swinging it at them. Just having it strapped to your back isn't enough. These situations said, the rules are now structured to reflect all three of these points. Confusing? Probably, only because of poor wording on the part of original card text. But it does make sense, both from a game mechanic point of view, and a logical one. My $0.02 Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

Kristyl Meth wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote in article > <37B2B584...@wizards.com>... > > [snip beginning of question] > > No strikes with weapons are hand strikes, so the damage they inflict is > > not hand damage. That weapon damage is not made aggravated by Claws (or > > Basilia's ability, etc.). > > OK, so let me get this straight in my thick skull. B.N. Tiger Claws is a > weapon that gives a minion "+2 _hand damage_", but weapon strikes cannot be > "hand" strikes. OK. So, if weapon strikes are not "hand" strikes, why > does Quintin still get his innate bonus "hand damage"? I don't believe Quentin has an innate hand damage modifier. Anyway, see my example below. > And since he _does_ > get that bonus, can't Wolf Claws be used to make at least that portion (the > innate portion) of the damage aggravated? He may use Wolf Claws if he choses (and has Protean). It will _not_ make a weapon strike aggavated, however. (not even part of it) > Allowing Quintin to tack on his > innate "hand damage" bonus but not allowing him to use modifiers applicable > to "hand damage" seems completely contradictory to me. A hand strike involves a vampire that strikes with his hands. A weapon strike involves a vampire that strikes with a weapon. The "+X hand damage" text on weapons is only used for determining the damage done by the weapon. If Lazvernius strikes with his fists, he inflicts 3 damage (His Special: +2 hand damage). This is hand damage. It would be modified by Wolf Claws. If Lazverinus strikes with BN Tiger Claws, he inflicts 5 damage. This is weapon damage. Using Wolf Claws would not make the damage aggravated because he is not striking with his hands. > > The rule should be either: (1) B.N. strikes are weapon strikes, so > Quintin's bonus "hand damage" does not apply and "hand damage" modifiers > cannot be played, BN is a weapon, so strikes using the weapon are weapon strikes. > or (2) the _entire_ B.N. Tiger Claws strike is hand > damage (because of B.N. Tiger Claws card text) which is added to Quintin's > inherent +1 hand damage and which can entirely be modified by hand damage > modifiers like Wolf Claws (giving him 4 aggro "hand damage"). The current > rule seems unecessarily confusing and doesn't make much sense to me > anyways. Why can't weapons like B.N. Tiger Claws (that increase "hand > damage") be treated as additions to a minion's innate strength (like > Depravity)? Because a weapon isn't the same as a modification to base hand damage. > Under the current rule (using a minion's innate strength with > weapon strikes but not calling it hand damage), Quintin may as well be > allowed to tack on his base damage when striking with _any_ weapon at close > range (.44, chainsaw, etc.). The weapons make no allowance for hand damage. There is no reason to tack on additional damage. Hope I've been clear, Rob Grau

How does the damage from Island of Yiaros work then? (A picture of Arika w/ Legendary Vampire & B.N. Tiger Claws dealing 9 dam in one strike with hel from Isle of Yiaros :) Now I need to get me one :) Andrew * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

Andrew Loder wrote: > How does the damage from Island of Yiaros work then? It increases the selected vampire's strength by X for one strike. This will affect both hand strikes and strength-based weapon strikes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew Loder wrote: > > How does the damage from Island of Yiaros work then? Card Text says "Tap this card to give a vampire you control +X hand damage for one strike, where X is the number of votes the vampire has" It does not specify the type of strike the vampire must make, so the vampire may still choose any legal strike. This would _not_ be the time for a zip gun, though. > (A picture of Arika w/ Legendary Vampire & B.N. Tiger Claws > dealing 9 dam in one strike with hel from Isle of Yiaros :) Appears to be legal. (and ouch, no potence needed.) > Now I need to get me one :) Downside is that it costs two and is (D) action burnable. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

James Coupe wrote: > > For example, see Talbot's Chainsaw: > > Unique weapon. > 3 damage each strike. If bearer is ready during your > untap phase, a ready minion you control takes 3 damage > (damage not preventable). Bearer cannot hunt. If ready > and untapped during your minion phase, bearer may > attack any minion as a +1 stealth (D) action, preses at > the end of the first round, and may prevent up to 1 > damage each combat. > Does the official version of this weapon say "may attack any minion?" From the Jyhad version (and the story behind the card: This is the chainsaw used by a crazy mass-murderer Gangrel named Talbot), I always had the impression that there was no choice involved in whether to attack someone or not (the Jyhad version says "bearer attacks" without the 'may.'

LSJ wrote: > > "davey! sprocket" wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, LSJ wrote: > > > > > Gaining additional strikes (Sword of Judgement) or presses (Talbot's Chainsaw) > > > has nothing to do with striking. > > > > why is it different for maneuvers from guns? > > Because the rules say so: > > 6.4.2. Determine Range > [...] If a minion uses the maneuver from a strike card or a > weapon, he is effectively choosing his strike as well. > > 6.4.3. Strike > 1. Choose Strike. [...]If a minion has used a maneuver from a strike (either a > strike card or a weapon) this round, then he cannot choose any other > strike for his initial strike of the round. > > > Sword of Judgement: > > The Brujah antitribu with this equipment gets +1 hand damage with each > > strike; he or she gains an optional additional strike each round of > > combat. Does the Sword of Judgement do nothing if owned by a minion who is not Brujah Antitribu? Other clan-requiring equipment (Mummy's Tongue, Femur of Toomler, for example) can be used by anyone, right? > > > > .44 Magnum: > > Weapon, Gun 2R each strike, with an optional maneuver each combat > > > > If instead it said "the minion with this eqipment gets an optional > > maneuver each combat," would the maneuver still commit the minion to > > striking with the weapon? > > Yes, because of the rule that says it would. > > You can visualize the maneuver from a gun as the minion with the gun > laying down some "cover fire" to keep his opponent at range before > firing the actual shot aimed at his opponent's head. (A different > visualization is needed for 'sniper weapons' like the Deer Rifle.) > Hehe. I always wondered how a gun might give a maneuver. And how about IR Goggles? Do V:TM vampires have body heat? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Likewise, you shouldn't gain >the benefit of a Bastard Sword's additional damage if yo uaren't swinging it >at them. Just having it strapped to your back isn't enough. I understand this whole concept of strength vs. hand damage and all. And how a weapon's damage bonus only applies when using it (just as a gun's manuever can be used only when using it), but I'm still confused. Someone told me that the Brujah anti-tribu Sword of Judgment, which grants an additional strike gives the strike even if it isn't used as the weapon. What's the deal with that? Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] It is true. Gaining additional strikes (Sword of Judgement) or presses (Talbot's Chainsaw) has nothing to do with striking. Dealing damage with a weapon, on the other hand, has a lot to do with striking. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19990822210828...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes >Someone told me that the >Brujah anti-tribu Sword of Judgment, which grants an additional strike gives >the strike even if it isn't used as the weapon. What's the deal with that? Well, if you have an IR Goggles, they just give you a maneuver, right? The Sword of Judgement gives you the ability to strike in a particular way, just like most weapons. It also has, as other text, the fact that you also get an Additional Strike. The striking bit needs the weapon to be chosen to strike with, because of the rules. The other bits don't. For example, see Talbot's Chainsaw: Unique weapon. 3 damage each strike. If bearer is ready during your untap phase, a ready minion you control takes 3 damage (damage not preventable). Bearer cannot hunt. If ready and untapped during your minion phase, bearer may attack any minion as a +1 stealth (D) action, preses at the end of the first round, and may prevent up to 1 damage each combat. Now, if I get into combat with TC, and I am playing against PDB6 with one of his weenie potence combat decks, and he throws down Immortal Grapple, I can't use it to strike for 3 damage with. However, I could prevent up to 1 damage and would press, because they come through holding the weapon, not through striking with it. Similarly, Sword of Judgement gives me an additional strike - not by striking with it, just by holding it. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

Nate Williams wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > > For example, see Talbot's Chainsaw: > > > > Unique weapon. > > 3 damage each strike. If bearer is ready during your > > untap phase, a ready minion you control takes 3 damage > > (damage not preventable). Bearer cannot hunt. If ready > > and untapped during your minion phase, bearer may > > attack any minion as a +1 stealth (D) action, preses at > > the end of the first round, and may prevent up to 1 > > damage each combat. > > > Does the official version of this weapon say "may attack any minion?" Yes. > From the Jyhad version (and the story behind the card: This is the > chainsaw used by a crazy mass-murderer Gangrel named Talbot), I always > had the impression that there was no choice involved in whether to > attack someone or not (the Jyhad version says "bearer attacks" without > the 'may.' The attack action is an option. Just as the strike for 3 is an option. The press is mandatory, however, as is the damage during untap. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, LSJ wrote: > Gaining additional strikes (Sword of Judgement) or presses (Talbot's Chainsaw) > has nothing to do with striking. why is it different for maneuvers from guns? Sword of Judgement: The Brujah antitribu with this equipment gets +1 hand damage with each strike; he or she gains an optional additional strike each round of combat. .44 Magnum: Weapon, Gun 2R each strike, with an optional maneuver each combat If instead it said "the minion with this eqipment gets an optional maneuver each combat," would the maneuver still commit the minion to striking with the weapon? -davey!

"davey! sprocket" wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, LSJ wrote: > > > Gaining additional strikes (Sword of Judgement) or presses (Talbot's Chainsaw) > > has nothing to do with striking. > > why is it different for maneuvers from guns? Because the rules say so: 6.4.2. Determine Range [...] If a minion uses the maneuver from a strike card or a weapon, he is effectively choosing his strike as well. 6.4.3. Strike 1. Choose Strike. [...]If a minion has used a maneuver from a strike (either a strike card or a weapon) this round, then he cannot choose any other strike for his initial strike of the round. > Sword of Judgement: > The Brujah antitribu with this equipment gets +1 hand damage with each > strike; he or she gains an optional additional strike each round of > combat. > > .44 Magnum: > Weapon, Gun 2R each strike, with an optional maneuver each combat > > If instead it said "the minion with this eqipment gets an optional > maneuver each combat," would the maneuver still commit the minion to > striking with the weapon? Yes, because of the rule that says it would. You can visualize the maneuver from a gun as the minion with the gun laying down some "cover fire" to keep his opponent at range before firing the actual shot aimed at his opponent's head. (A different visualization is needed for 'sniper weapons' like the Deer Rifle.) -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.990823...@harper.uchicago.edu >, davey! sprocket <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes >.44 Magnum: > Weapon, Gun 2R each strike, with an optional maneuver each combat > >If instead it said "the minion with this eqipment gets an optional >maneuver each combat," would the maneuver still commit the minion to >striking with the weapon? Imagine the following guard: .44 Magnum with Big Shield Attached: Weapon Gun. 2R with each strike. The bearer may prevent up to 1 damage each combat. You wouldn't have to use the gun for a strike to prevent the 1 damage. It just happens. How about "has an optional press". Same deal. Now, change that to "additional strike" - same deal. The only reason the maneuver thing is different is because the rules specifically single out maneuvers. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nate Williams wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > "davey! sprocket" wrote: > > > Sword of Judgement: > > > The Brujah antitribu with this equipment gets +1 hand damage with each > > > strike; he or she gains an optional additional strike each round of > > > combat. > > Does the Sword of Judgement do nothing if owned by a minion who is not > Brujah Antitribu? Other clan-requiring equipment (Mummy's Tongue, Femur > of Toomler, for example) can be used by anyone, right? Sword of Judgement has no card text pertaining to any advantages, bonuses, uses, restrictions, or disadvantages for a minion who is not Brujah Antitribu, so no. Mummy's Tongue can only be used by a "vampire" (not an ally), by card text. The Femur's ability is usable by the "minion" with it, so can be used by any minion (who gets his hands on it). > > You can visualize the maneuver from a gun as the minion with the gun > > laying down some "cover fire" to keep his opponent at range before > > firing the actual shot aimed at his opponent's head. (A different > > visualization is needed for 'sniper weapons' like the Deer Rifle.) > > > Hehe. I always wondered how a gun might give a maneuver. And how about > IR Goggles? Do V:TM vampires have body heat? Heh. Unknown, but unlikely (except immediately after they've fed, I suspect). [ quoted text not captured ]

>.44 Magnum with Big Shield Attached: >Weapon Gun. 2R with each strike. The bearer may prevent up to 1 damage >each combat. > >You wouldn't have to use the gun for a strike to prevent the 1 damage. >It just happens. So in this case, one prevents a damage from "holding" the weapon, as someone previously said, right? But what if a vampire was equipped with 5 of those .44 Magnums w/ Shields. Would it make sense that he/she would be able to prevent 5 damage? >The only reason the maneuver thing is different is because the rules >specifically single out maneuvers. But my question is whether the reason manuevers were specifically singled out is because the rules team thought manuevers were special, or whether it was simply a minor oversight. Maybe they hadn't considered other weapon effects would be a problem. Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > >.44 Magnum with Big Shield Attached: > >Weapon Gun. 2R with each strike. The bearer may prevent up to 1 damage > >each combat. > > > >You wouldn't have to use the gun for a strike to prevent the 1 damage. > >It just happens. > > So in this case, one prevents a damage from "holding" the weapon, as someone > previously said, right? But what if a vampire was equipped with 5 of those .44 > Magnums w/ Shields. Would it make sense that he/she would be able to prevent 5 > damage? As much sense as getting 5 maneuvers by wearing 5 pairs of IR Goggles, I suppose. At some point, you have to let go of reality in favor of simplicity, uniformity, and playability. It is a card game, after all. > >The only reason the maneuver thing is different is because the rules > >specifically single out maneuvers. > > But my question is whether the reason manuevers were specifically singled out > is because the rules team thought manuevers were special, or whether it was > simply a minor oversight. Maybe they hadn't considered other weapon effects > would be a problem. Other weapon effects *aren't* a problem. Maneuvers were singled out because the mechanic of maneuvering with a strike was a common one in the base set. The idea is that the nature of the strike itself allows the minion to maneuver. Other things, like preventing damage, are neither common for weapons, nor conceptually linked to the strike. At any rate, if some effect (like gaining addition strikes) were to be linked to striking, it would have to say so on the card, since the rules do not make that connection. Since the Sword of Judgment doesn't have such text, the gaining of the additional strike is not linked to striking with the weapon. And since the Sword is not overly powerful, no errata has been issued. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <37C2DCFB...@wizards.com>... >Nate Williams wrote: >> IR Goggles? Do V:TM vampires have body heat? > >Heh. Unknown, but unlikely (except immediately after they've fed, I suspect). According to V:TM, they're about ambient temperature, but they can burn some blood to simulate body heat. I always suspected the IR goggles simply allowed those without Auspex or Protean to see in the dark better. Though perhaps I was thinking more of "low-light" goggles... Xian www.waste.org/~xian

LSJ wrote in message <37C2F6FC...@wizards.com>... >Halcyan 2 wrote: >> So in this case, one prevents a damage from "holding" the weapon, as someone >> previously said, right? But what if a vampire was equipped with 5 of those .44 >> Magnums w/ Shields. Would it make sense that he/she would be able to prevent 5 >> damage? > >As much sense as getting 5 maneuvers by wearing 5 pairs of IR Goggles, I >suppose. At some point, you have to let go of reality in favor of simplicity, >uniformity, and playability. It is a card game, after all. > Or, to continue the damage prevention line, imagine five Flak Jackets ("Shaddup. It's a fashion statement..." - Marco Balaguer). Imagine, if you would, that your additional investment (pool or actions) nets you an upgraded version of the original piece of equipment, instead of two of the same item. Rather than a cheap WW II surplus item, you upgraded to the high tech kevlar model. Same for IR Goggles. Although I agree with the above wholeheartedly (It is just a card game) I also maintain that if you can't come up with a reason for the CCG to fit reality, you're just not thinking abstractly enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ schrieb in Nachricht <37C2DCFB...@wizards.com>... [snip] >> > >> Hehe. I always wondered how a gun might give a maneuver. And how about >> IR Goggles? Do V:TM vampires have body heat? > >Heh. Unknown, but unlikely (except immediately after they've fed, I suspect). > >-- >LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. >Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: >http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp Well, of course you get a maneuver from the Goggles exactly because vamps do _not_ have body heat - and when you look at a crowd through them and do not see a person you can perceive good and well with normal sight, you know that the enemy is near... ;-) -- Hardy Range "We live on a placid island in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should journey far." H.P.Lovecraft hardy...@cityweb.de