A few questions...

1. Presumably there's nothing to stop you using The Spawning Pool and then Elysium? As The Spawning Pool isn't a strike, I see no reason not to deal the damage before range is determined and then end combat. Sick. 2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action? Going by the rules I'd say yes as it's technically a recruit action (albeit an odd one) and therefore at +1 stealth but logic would say no - almost all actions involving only your own minions are at +1 stealth (ie. hunting, equipping) whereas almost all action involving other peoples minions are not at stealth (ie bleeding or encountering in torpor). As recruiting always (almost) involves only your own minions, it's obviously at +1 stealth. Charnas is a bit of an exception however. Using him involves another Methusalah's minion and maybe shouldn't be at stealth. Having said that, I'd accept either answer. 3. When using Malkavien Dementia, does the Malkavian untap when you nab them? I'd guess not but wondered if there was a ruling. 4. Corpse Minion. Can the reacting vampire use this multiple times when blocking the same action ie. does he have to burn X blood in one chunk for X intercept or can get 1 intercept, wait to see if stealth is added etc? It would be a bit silly if he couldn't but the text isn't completely clear. 5. Malkavian Derangement: Alternate Personality. When an afflicted Malkavian takes an action that requires a card, say Computer Hacking, if the coin comes up tails, do they loose the card or does it go back into their hand? 6. Finally a question on card timing. There are a few card combinations whose effects depend on who plays them first. Two obvious examples are Mariel / Elysium and Thought Betrayed. In the first case, if a vamp whos Methusalah has Elysium goes into combat with a vamp whos Methusalah also controls Mariel and both players wish to end combat, which one goes first. As neither card forms part of the maneuver itself I don't see why the acting minion gets to go first - either can be played at any point before range is determined. The other example, Thought Betrayed is played beofre combat begins and states that the opposing minion cannot use cards until after combat. If both players have Thoughts Betrayed in their hand then it comes down to a game of Snap as to who gets clobbered. Any thoughts? Richard -- "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces" ric...@onechip.co.uk

Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: >1. Presumably there's nothing to stop you using The Spawning Pool and then >Elysium? As The Spawning Pool isn't a strike, I see no reason not to deal the >damage before range is determined and then end combat. Sick. Peace Richard, SP does require that you get to the second round of combat before being used. I don't have an E:tA in front of me, but I thought it had to be used at the beginning of a combat. If not, this is a perfectly acceptable combination. >2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action? Going by the rules >I'd say yes as it's technically a recruit action (albeit an odd one) and >therefore at +1 stealth but logic would say no - almost all actions involving >only your own minions are at +1 stealth (ie. hunting, equipping) whereas >almost all action involving other peoples minions are not at stealth (ie >bleeding or encountering in torpor). As recruiting always (almost) involves >only your own minions, it's obviously at +1 stealth. Charnas is a bit of an >exception however. Using him involves another Methusalah's minion and maybe >shouldn't be at stealth. Having said that, I'd accept either answer. Yes, Charnas is a retainer (albeit an odd one) so recruiting/getting "him" is a +1 stealth action, just like all other retainers. >3. When using Malkavien Dementia, does the Malkavian untap when you nab them? >I'd guess not but wondered if there was a ruling. Not TTBOMK, but the DC keeps changing whether the Malk untaps, etc, so I'm not sure. >4. Corpse Minion. Can the reacting vampire use this multiple times when >blocking the same action ie. does he have to burn X blood in one chunk for X >intercept or can get 1 intercept, wait to see if stealth is added etc? It >would be a bit silly if he couldn't but the text isn't completely clear. I believe that it was posted as usable multiple times and does cost one blood per +1 intercept gained and, yes, I believe that you can increase your intercept one point at a time using CM. >6. Finally a question on card timing. There are a few card combinations whose >effects depend on who plays them first. Two obvious examples are Mariel / >Elysium and Thought Betrayed. In the first case, if a vamp whos Methusalah has >Elysium goes into combat with a vamp whos Methusalah also controls Mariel and >both players wish to end combat, which one goes first. As neither card forms >part of the maneuver itself I don't see why the acting minion gets to go first >- either can be played at any point before range is determined. The other >example, Thought Betrayed is played beofre combat begins and states that the >opposing minion cannot use cards until after combat. If both players have >Thoughts Betrayed in their hand then it comes down to a game of Snap as to who >gets clobbered. Any thoughts? When any sort of timing question like this occurs it resolves as: acting minion/ Meth, reacting/blocking minion/Meth, other Meths starting to the right of the acting Meth. See the post by Shane (I believe) which talks about who can block when using Eagle's Sight [I just read it today]. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <1996010419...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: >1. Presumably there's nothing to stop you using The Spawning Pool and then >Elysium? As The Spawning Pool isn't a strike, I see no reason not to deal the >damage before range is determined and then end combat. Sick. This works just fine. >2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action? Going by the rules >I'd say yes as it's technically a recruit action (albeit an odd one) and >therefore at +1 stealth but logic would say no - almost all actions involving >only your own minions are at +1 stealth (ie. hunting, equipping) whereas >almost all action involving other peoples minions are not at stealth (ie >bleeding or encountering in torpor). As recruiting always (almost) involves >only your own minions, it's obviously at +1 stealth. Charnas is a bit of an >exception however. Using him involves another Methusalah's minion and maybe >shouldn't be at stealth. Having said that, I'd accept either answer. It is an undirected +1 stealth action (like any other Employ Retainer action). Common sense and some house rules change it to a zero-stealth (D) action. >3. When using Malkavien Dementia, does the Malkavian untap when you nab them? >I'd guess not but wondered if there was a ruling. No. (there is a ruling). >4. Corpse Minion. Can the reacting vampire use this multiple times when >blocking the same action ie. does he have to burn X blood in one chunk for X >intercept or can get 1 intercept, wait to see if stealth is added etc? It >would be a bit silly if he couldn't but the text isn't completely clear. The Corpse can be invoked any number of times, with whatever small number for X suits you. the RT may eventually call this an action modifier effect and restrict it to once per action, but they haven't yet. >5. Malkavian Derangement: Alternate Personality. When an afflicted Malkavian >takes an action that requires a card, say Computer Hacking, if the coin comes >up tails, do they loose the card or does it go back into their hand? Any card used for the attempt is burned just as if the action failed normally. >6. Finally a question on card timing. There are a few card combinations whose >effects depend on who plays them first. Two obvious examples are Mariel / >Elysium and Thought Betrayed. In the first case, if a vamp whos Methusalah has >Elysium goes into combat with a vamp whos Methusalah also controls Mariel and >both players wish to end combat, which one goes first. As neither card forms >part of the maneuver itself I don't see why the acting minion gets to go first >- either can be played at any point before range is determined. The other >example, Thought Betrayed is played beofre combat begins and states that the >opposing minion cannot use cards until after combat. If both players have >Thoughts Betrayed in their hand then it comes down to a game of Snap as to who >gets clobbered. Any thoughts? In all cases where two or more Methuselahs wish to use effects at the same time the order is: acting Meth., Blocking Meth. (if any), then other Meth.s starting clockwise with the Prey of the acting Meth. There is never any slap situation. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <4cj8el$o...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com says... > >In article <1996010419...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, >Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: >>2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action? Going by the rules >>I'd say yes as it's technically a recruit action (albeit an odd one) and >>therefore at +1 stealth but logic would say no - almost all actions involving >>only your own minions are at +1 stealth (ie. hunting, equipping) whereas >>almost all action involving other peoples minions are not at stealth (ie >>bleeding or encountering in torpor). As recruiting always (almost) involves >>only your own minions, it's obviously at +1 stealth. Charnas is a bit of an >>exception however. Using him involves another Methusalah's minion and maybe >>shouldn't be at stealth. Having said that, I'd accept either answer. > >It is an undirected +1 stealth action (like any other Employ Retainer action). >Common sense and some house rules change it to a zero-stealth (D) action. Surely if it's a +1 stealth non directed action then its quite possible for the target not to be able to block ie. if they're neither your predator nor prey (without Eagle's Sight). Have I missed something here. [ quoted text not captured ]

Richard Mines (ric...@onechip.co.uk) wrote: : lsc...@crl.com says... : >It is an undirected +1 stealth action (like any other Employ Retainer action). : >Common sense and some house rules change it to a zero-stealth (D) action. : Surely if it's a +1 stealth non directed action then its quite possible for : the target not to be able to block ie. if they're neither your predator nor : prey (without Eagle's Sight). Have I missed something here. Nope. This is the kicker about non-directed actions; only your predator and prey can attempt to block them. This means that in a 5-player game, there are going to be 2 Methjuselahs at whom you can direct this action without them being able to do thing one about it. See why house rules are brought into play here? Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>4. Corpse Minion. Can the reacting vampire use this multiple times when >>blocking the same action ie. does he have to burn X blood in one chunk for X >>intercept or can get 1 intercept, wait to see if stealth is added etc? It >>would be a bit silly if he couldn't but the text isn't completely clear. >The Corpse can be invoked any number of times, with whatever small number for >X suits you. the RT may eventually call this an action modifier effect >and restrict it to once per action, but they haven't yet. While this question hasn't come up for Corpse Minion, I know we said that Forest of Shadows could be reused if you could untap it during the action, (or if it never tapped in the first place), and I see no reason why this wouldn't extend to Corpse Minion et al. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: -> In article <1996010419...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, -> Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: -->2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action? Going by the -->rules I'd say yes as it's technically a recruit action (albeit an odd -->one) and therefore at +1 stealth but logic would say no - almost all -->actions involving only your own minions are at +1 stealth (ie. hunting, -->equipping) whereas almost all action involving other peoples minions -->are not at stealth (ie bleeding or encountering in torpor). As recruiting -->always (almost) involves only your own minions, it's obviously at +1 -->stealth. Charnas is a bit of an exception however. Using him involves -->another Methusalah's minion and maybe shouldn't be at stealth. Having -->said that, I'd accept either answer. -> -> It is an undirected +1 stealth action (like any other Employ Retainer -> action). Common sense and some house rules change it to a zero-stealth -> (D) action. -> It certainly makes sense to make the action directed, but whether or not "common sense" dictates it should be a zero stealth depends on whether you think it's easy for the victim to tell that Charnas is being summoned while it's still preventable. From a game point of view, making it a zero stealth (D) action turns Charnas essentially into a Bum's Rush, since 99% of the time it'll be blocked. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <4cv8t9$g...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@homer.ucsf.edu says... [ quoted text not captured ] I disagree. Just because an action *can* be blocked doesn't make it useless. What about stealth? Seduction etc. Of course you need to find ways of stopping the target from blocking it but isn't that what the game's about? Strategy? You might say that diablerie was just a Bum's Rush as it'll almost always be blocked as well. Find a way round it. BTW Bum's Rush allows you to attack a specific minion so it's not the same anyway. The reason I think it should be 0 stealth is that, although recruit actions are normally at +1 stealth, they always involve only your own minions. As for all other "me only" actions, that makes it +1 stealth. Charnas is the exception however and thus I feel he shouldn't be at stealth. Richard -- "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces" ric...@onechip.co.uk

Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: > In article <4cv8t9$g...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@homer.ucsf.edu says... > >lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >-> In article <1996010419...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, > >-> Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: > >-->2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action?... > >-> > >-> It is an undirected +1 stealth action (like any other Employ Retainer > >-> action). Common sense and some house rules change it to a zero-stealth > >-> (D) action. > > > > It certainly makes sense to make the action directed, but whether > >or not "common sense" dictates it should be a zero stealth depends on > >whether you think it's easy for the victim to tell that Charnas is being > >summoned while it's still preventable. From a game point of view, making > >it a zero stealth (D) action turns Charnas essentially into a Bum's Rush, > >since 99% of the time it'll be blocked. > > I disagree. Just because an action *can* be blocked doesn't make it > useless. What about stealth? Seduction etc. Charnas is a Tremere retainer; their ability to generate stealth is quite limited. The Seduction you mentioned is about the only way for them to prevent a blocker, and using Seduction with a *0 stealth* action is pretty useless since anyone can Wake up and block. Seduction is principally useful with +1 (or more) stealth actions where it's clear who the likely blocker is (he/she is sporting some kind of permanent intercept). > Of course you need to find > ways of stopping the target from blocking it but isn't that what the > game's about? Strategy? Yeah, the game is about strategy. Good point. I'll make sure to make use of it in my next argument. At any rate, by changing the card from +1 stealth to 0 stealth you've made it so that Charnas no longer fits well into a Tremere deck since Tremere are very bad at generating stealth. It makes the card, as I said before, essentially a Bum's Rush. > You might say that diablerie was just a Bum's > Rush as it'll almost always be blocked as well. I'll say it again: Tremere are bad at stealth. Other clans may or may not be, therefore diablerie is not "just a Bum's Rush". Not to mention you might not block diablerie if you have the votes for a bloodhunt, a 6th tradition, or are using necromancy. > BTW Bum's Rush allows you to attack a specific minion so it's not the > same anyway. I didn't say it was _exactly_ identical. But since Bum's Rush is at 0 stealth most of the time the Rush is blocked and a minion other than the original target fights. BTW, you get to replace Charnas before the combat, which in some ways makes it better than Bum's Rush. > The reason I think it should be 0 stealth is that, although recruit > actions are normally at +1 stealth, they always involve only your own > minions. As for all other "me only" actions, that makes it +1 stealth. > Charnas is the exception however and thus I feel he shouldn't be at > stealth. Look, Thaumaturgy is spell casting. All I'm saying is that "common sense" doesn't dictate anything in this situation. What makes summoning Charnas (which you propose to be 0 stealth) different from Cryptic Mission (which is +1 stealth)? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4d787j$a...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@homer.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: > > In article <4cv8t9$g...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@homer.ucsf.edu says... > > >lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > > >-> In article <1996010419...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, > > >-> Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: > > >-->2. Is giving someone Charnas the Imp a +1 stealth action?... > > >-> > > >-> It is an undirected +1 stealth action (like any other Employ Retainer > > >-> action). Common sense and some house rules change it to a zero-stealth > > >-> (D) action. > > > > > > It certainly makes sense to make the action directed, but whether > > >or not "common sense" dictates it should be a zero stealth depends on > > >whether you think it's easy for the victim to tell that Charnas is being > > >summoned while it's still preventable. From a game point of view, making > > >it a zero stealth (D) action turns Charnas essentially into a Bum's Rush, > > >since 99% of the time it'll be blocked. > > > > I disagree. Just because an action *can* be blocked doesn't make it > > useless. What about stealth? Seduction etc. > > Charnas is a Tremere retainer; their ability to generate stealth > is quite limited. Play Justine, Lucian, Mariel as your "star tremere". Or even Etrius, if you can keep him. ;-) > The Seduction you mentioned is about the only way for > them to prevent a blocker, and using Seduction with a *0 stealth* action > is pretty useless since anyone can Wake up and block. Seduction is > principally useful with +1 (or more) stealth actions where it's clear who > the likely blocker is (he/she is sporting some kind of permanent intercept). Like "KRCG News Radio", for instance? I don't play "Seduction", either. I play Obfuscate (and Malkavian) with Tremere. Then intercept-to-combat predator and s+b prey. [...] > > The reason I think it should be 0 stealth is that, although recruit > > actions are normally at +1 stealth, they always involve only your own > > minions. As for all other "me only" actions, that makes it +1 stealth. > > Charnas is the exception however and thus I feel he shouldn't be at > > stealth. > > Look, Thaumaturgy is spell casting. All I'm saying is that "common > sense" doesn't dictate anything in this situation. What makes summoning > Charnas (which you propose to be 0 stealth) different from Cryptic Mission > (which is +1 stealth)? Actually, if you can consider "common sense" to apply to magic, I guess common sense includes the +1 stealth. Charnas is summoned in the privacy of one's own Chantry, not out on the street. If it was out in the street, it would be a combat card. Which would mean that it is still directed, but you need some intellegence (=intercept) to discover and prevent the action being taken. But not "Eagle's Sight" - any intercept will do. Then Justine plays "Lost in Crowds". Then "Faceless Night"... Simon --- "This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16 si...@onechip.co.uk | Not affiliated to any religion | Not affiliated to any politics H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me? "I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"