Hi,
is there a 'timing' for multiple Weather controls (WC)?
Vamp A is acting and has 1 blood.
Vamp B successfully blocks with 2 blood.
Would Vamp A be allowed to play 3 WCs and send both to torpor?
Does the effect of each WC immediatly take place or are
all WCs played and and then take effect?
When would Vamp B have the opportunity to play WC?
Only after Vamp A is finished with all his WCs?
THX in advance.
Alf Behrends
Braunschweig - Germany
Alfred Behrends wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is there a 'timing' for multiple Weather controls (WC)?
>
> Vamp A is acting and has 1 blood.
> Vamp B successfully blocks with 2 blood.
>
> Would Vamp A be allowed to play 3 WCs and send both to torpor?
Yes.
> Does the effect of each WC immediatly take place or are
> all WCs played and and then take effect?
As the acting Methuselah wishes, since WC merely sets up a damaging
effect which will occur "before range" each round, which is the same
time that another WC could be played.
> When would Vamp B have the opportunity to play WC?
> Only after Vamp A is finished with all his WCs?
Whenever A's controller decides that she is finished with effects.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Hi Scott -
In Alfred's example, Vamp A drops 3 Weather Controls, which once
resolved would send VampB to torpor. My question is whether Vamp B
would also be allowed to play Weather Controls, if only to cycle them
out of their hand...
Thanks,
Chris
LSJ wrote:
>
> Alfred Behrends wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > is there a 'timing' for multiple Weather controls (WC)?
> >
> > Vamp A is acting and has 1 blood.
> > Vamp B successfully blocks with 2 blood.
> >
> > Would Vamp A be allowed to play 3 WCs and send both to torpor?
>> Yes.>
> > Does the effect of each WC immediatly take place or are
> > all WCs played and and then take effect?
>> As the acting Methuselah wishes, since WC merely sets up a damaging
> effect which will occur "before range" each round, which is the same
> time that another WC could be played.
>> > When would Vamp B have the opportunity to play WC?
> > Only after Vamp A is finished with all his WCs?
>> Whenever A's controller decides that she is finished with effects.
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
--
chris
<www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development)
ultimate disc - V:TES - hockey
v:ekn prince of torrance, ca
Chris Shorb wrote:
> In Alfred's example, Vamp A drops 3 Weather Controls, which once
> resolved would send VampB to torpor. My question is whether Vamp B
> would also be allowed to play Weather Controls, if only to cycle them
> out of their hand...
If Vamp A's controller wished to order them that way, sure.
Vamp A's controller could decide to have the WCs resolve as
soon as she (A's controller) was done cycling her own hand,
though.
> > > Does the effect of each WC immediatly take place or are
> > > all WCs played and and then take effect?
> >> > As the acting Methuselah wishes, since WC merely sets up a damaging
> > effect which will occur "before range" each round, which is the same
> > time that another WC could be played.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi Scott -
LSJ wrote:
>
> Chris Shorb wrote:
> > In Alfred's example, Vamp A drops 3 Weather Controls, which once
> > resolved would send VampB to torpor. My question is whether Vamp B
> > would also be allowed to play Weather Controls, if only to cycle them
> > out of their hand...
>
> If Vamp A's controller wished to order them that way, sure.
> Vamp A's controller could decide to have the WCs resolve as
> soon as she (A's controller) was done cycling her own hand,
> though.
>
So then you are saying that it is a matter of whoever speaks/plays fast
enough gets to play the cards? I was under the impression that V:TES
was immune to real-world timing issues. If someone plays an effect,
then everyone else is able to respond to that effect. Then, if the
effects resolve simultaneously, they resolve.
In our example here, Vamp A dumps 3 WC's, and then Vamp B decides to
play hers. By your response, you are saying that Vamp B can only play
hers if Vamp A ('s controller) allows it - i.e. deciding not to have her
WC's resolve before Vamp B could play them. Again, this seems counter
to the common courtesy of Acting Meth plays card, all reacting meth's
able to play cards are then allowed to, Acting Meth plays another card,
all reacting meths, etc. Or in combat, Acting meth plays card before
range is chosen, reacting meth plays card, acting meth plays card, etc.,
until no one chooses to play cards before range. This is based on the
official rules that the Acting Meth chooses a range, reacting meth can
choose to change or accept, if changed, acting meth can change or accept
etc. In other words, there is a formal back and forth interplay in the
order in which cards are played. Your response indicates (but does not
explicitly state) that this is not official, it is just used to
streamline play. Your response to me does explicitly state that Vamp
A's controller can dump all their pre-combat cards out of their hand
*and resolve them* before vamp B is even offered a chance to also play
pre-combat cards.
If Vamp A's Meth says "I drop 3 WC's from my hand and they resolve
before you get to drop any from yours since you are now going to torpor
since I spoke quicker than you were able to get a word in edgewise, suck
it up slowpoke", that is ok.
This is what your response indicates to me. Am I misunderstanding?
> > > > Does the effect of each WC immediatly take place or are
> > > > all WCs played and and then take effect?
> > >> > > As the acting Methuselah wishes, since WC merely sets up a damaging
> > > effect which will occur "before range" each round, which is the same
> > > time that another WC could be played.
>
I just read this line you wrote earlier. You indicate here that another
WC could be played "before range" each round. This seems contrary to
card text which states "Only usable at beginning of combat". Are you
saying that the first WC played is the beginning of combat, so therefore
any played after are no longer played in the "beginning of combat"
sub-phase (unofficial term), but are instead played in the "before range
is chosen(BRIC)" sub-phase (unofficial term)? Then wouldn't the 2nd and
3rd WC played by Acting Meth A also be played in that BRIC sub-phase,
not the "Beginning of Combat" sub-phase? And finally, a corollary, your
response reveals that only the acting Meth may play cards in the
"Beginning of combat" phase, if they play a card, since by virtue of
playing the card, it is no longer the Beginning of Combat.
If to all this you meant to say that Vamp B's WC's could be played, but
Vamp A could decide to have all 3 of hers resolve before Vamp B, then I
apologize. But it seems to me just like being able to play a strike
card after acting meth plays S:CE.
Thanks,
Chris
Relevant Card text and Rulings, Clarifications and Errata:
*******************
Weather Control
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Only usable at beginning of combat. Both combatants and each of their
retainers take 1 damage before range is determined each round. This
damage cannot be prevented. (S) As above, but the amount of damage
inflicted increases by 1 each round.
Weather Control - Combat (tha)
· Multiple Weather Controls are cumulative. [TOM 19950710]
· Weather Control's damage will occur even if combat is subsequently
ended before range (by Mariel or Elysium: Arboretum, e.g.) [LSJ
19971110]
*******************
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Shorb wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Chris Shorb wrote:
> > > In Alfred's example, Vamp A drops 3 Weather Controls, which once
> > > resolved would send VampB to torpor. My question is whether Vamp B
> > > would also be allowed to play Weather Controls, if only to cycle them
> > > out of their hand...
> >
> > If Vamp A's controller wished to order them that way, sure.
> > Vamp A's controller could decide to have the WCs resolve as
> > soon as she (A's controller) was done cycling her own hand,
> > though.
>
> So then you are saying that it is a matter of whoever speaks/plays fast
> enough gets to play the cards?
No. As above, it is determined by the acting Methuselah.
If she wants to resolve the damage, then the damage is resolved.
If she wants to wait until the next effect played by another player,
then the damage waits to resolve. As stated.
See 1.6.1.5 of the rules.
> I was under the impression that V:TES
> was immune to real-world timing issues. If someone plays an effect,
> then everyone else is able to respond to that effect. Then, if the
> effects resolve simultaneously, they resolve.
Only strike effects are "simultaneous" (and then only if they are
equally matched - first strike to first strike, etc.) Other effects
are ordered/sequenced.
> In our example here, Vamp A dumps 3 WC's, and then Vamp B decides to
> play hers. By your response, you are saying that Vamp B can only play
> hers if Vamp A ('s controller) allows it - i.e. deciding not to have her
> WC's resolve before Vamp B could play them.
Correct.
> Again, this seems counter
> to the common courtesy of Acting Meth plays card, all reacting meth's
> able to play cards are then allowed to, Acting Meth plays another card,
> all reacting meths, etc.
It may be counter to that paradigm, but that paradigm is not part of V:TES.
Acting Meth plays a card/effect.
Then *acting* meth chooses whether to play another card/effect.
1.6.1.5 explains this in more detail.
> Or in combat, Acting meth plays card before
> range is chosen, reacting meth plays card, acting meth plays card, etc.,
> until no one chooses to play cards before range. This is based on the
Acting meth plays a card before range.
Then acting meth plays another.
Then another.
And so on until she is "done" for the moment.
*Then* the defending Meth plays an effect.
If the defender plays an effect, the acting player gets the next opportunity.
> official rules that the Acting Meth chooses a range, reacting meth can
> choose to change or accept, if changed, acting meth can change or accept
> etc. In other words, there is a formal back and forth interplay in the
> order in which cards are played. Your response indicates (but does not
Only for maneuvers (since a Meth cannot cancel her own) and presses (for
the same reason).
> explicitly state) that this is not official, it is just used to
It is not, except for maneuvers and presses. See the rulebook.
> streamline play. Your response to me does explicitly state that Vamp
> A's controller can dump all their pre-combat cards out of their hand
> *and resolve them* before vamp B is even offered a chance to also play
> pre-combat cards.
Correct (assuming the "resolve" either when played - as normal - or
at the "Before Determining Range" timing window).
> If Vamp A's Meth says "I drop 3 WC's from my hand and they resolve
> before you get to drop any from yours since you are now going to torpor
> since I spoke quicker than you were able to get a word in edgewise, suck
> it up slowpoke", that is ok.
It isn't a matter of speaking quicker - the defender is not allowed to
"interrupt" the acting Meth's sequence of events.
> This is what your response indicates to me. Am I misunderstanding?
Nope. That's how the rules are written.
> [... snip ...]> "Beginning of combat" phase, if they play a card, since by virtue of
> playing the card, it is no longer the Beginning of Combat.
"Beginning of Combat" = "Before Range is Determined on the First Round"
Two names for the same "phase" of combat (when applied to the first
round).
> If to all this you meant to say that Vamp B's WC's could be played, but
> Vamp A could decide to have all 3 of hers resolve before Vamp B, then I
> apologize. But it seems to me just like being able to play a strike
> card after acting meth plays S:CE.
S:CE (like all strikes) doesn't resolve when announced - both combatants
announce their strikes before any strike resolves, by the rulebook.
[ quoted text not captured ]
OK, thanks for citing section 1.6.1.5. This clears it up. It also
seems to clear up some confusion at our recent tournament regarding
Seduction - to whit, the acting Meth can declare a bleed, play a
Conditioning to modify that bleed, and then draw the Seduction to play
for that bleed. *And then* call for blockers.
Is this correct? Someone was ousted due this ruling.
Thanks,
Chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Shorb wrote:
>
> OK, thanks for citing section 1.6.1.5. This clears it up. It also
> seems to clear up some confusion at our recent tournament regarding
> Seduction - to whit, the acting Meth can declare a bleed, play a
> Conditioning to modify that bleed, and then draw the Seduction to play
> for that bleed. *And then* call for blockers.
>
> Is this correct? Someone was ousted due this ruling.
No - Seduction has to be played when the action is announced - before
Conditioning is played.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi Scott, thanks for the reply.
So let me clarify, what if I declared a bleed by saying "I bleed you
with Conditioning" (even though it is usually played after blockers, but
I want to cycle), then draw the Seduction, "and seduce your vampire".
That is not legal? I.e., once I have played the Conditioning, since I
played it as I was declaring the action, aren't I still declaring the
action?
Thanks,
Chris
LSJ wrote:
>
> Chris Shorb wrote:
> >
> > OK, thanks for citing section 1.6.1.5. This clears it up. It also
> > seems to clear up some confusion at our recent tournament regarding
> > Seduction - to whit, the acting Meth can declare a bleed, play a
> > Conditioning to modify that bleed, and then draw the Seduction to play
> > for that bleed. *And then* call for blockers.
> >
> > Is this correct? Someone was ousted due this ruling.
>> No - Seduction has to be played when the action is announced - before
> Conditioning is played.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 09:26:55 -0700, Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org>
wrote:
>Hi Scott, thanks for the reply.
>
>So let me clarify, what if I declared a bleed by saying "I bleed you
>with Conditioning" (even though it is usually played after blockers, but
>I want to cycle), then draw the Seduction, "and seduce your vampire".
>That is not legal? I.e., once I have played the Conditioning, since I
>played it as I was declaring the action, aren't I still declaring the
>action?
Except that now you are -modifying- the action, and have in fact
already modified the action with Conditioning.
It IS legal, i believe, to play a Govern ("I bleed you for 3"), and
then play a Seduction you just drew up, as you are still actually
declaring the action (govern being an action card).
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Chris Shorb wrote:
>
> Hi Scott, thanks for the reply.
>
> So let me clarify, what if I declared a bleed by saying "I bleed you
> with Conditioning" (even though it is usually played after blockers, but
> I want to cycle), then draw the Seduction, "and seduce your vampire".
> That is not legal? I.e., once I have played the Conditioning, since I
> played it as I was declaring the action, aren't I still declaring the
> action?
No. Conditioning is not played during the declaration of the action.
If you've played conditioning, then you must've finished with
announcing the action, since Conditioning is played later.
Announce the action: Vampire A (tapping) bleeds my prey.
<Little window to play as-action-is-announced effects, like Seduction>
Post-announcement:
Modify the action (both acting Meth as well as blocking Meth, in addition
to any other Meth's capable of interfering). e.g. Conditioning, Dawn Op,
etc.
Resolve block attempts, if any (interspersed with more modifiers as above).
If all blocks are over (and unsuccessful),
Modify some more.
Resolve the action.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thank you for this clear and succinct answer to my question. I will
forward this to all 6 judges at that tournament as well as the person
who was the unfortunate victim. Tournament report I hope by this
weekend.
Chris
LSJ wrote:
>
> Chris Shorb wrote:
> >> > Hi Scott, thanks for the reply.
> >
> > So let me clarify, what if I declared a bleed by saying "I bleed you
> > with Conditioning" (even though it is usually played after blockers, but
> > I want to cycle), then draw the Seduction, "and seduce your vampire".
> > That is not legal? I.e., once I have played the Conditioning, since I
> > played it as I was declaring the action, aren't I still declaring the
> > action?
>
> No. Conditioning is not played during the declaration of the action.
> If you've played conditioning, then you must've finished with
> announcing the action, since Conditioning is played later.
>
> Announce the action: Vampire A (tapping) bleeds my prey.
> <Little window to play as-action-is-announced effects, like Seduction>
>
> Post-announcement:
> Modify the action (both acting Meth as well as blocking Meth, in addition
> to any other Meth's capable of interfering). e.g. Conditioning, Dawn Op,
> etc.
>
> Resolve block attempts, if any (interspersed with more modifiers as above).
>
> If all blocks are over (and unsuccessful),
> Modify some more.
>
> Resolve the action.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> > So let me clarify, what if I declared a bleed by saying "I bleed you
> > with Conditioning" (even though it is usually played after blockers, but
> > I want to cycle), then draw the Seduction, "and seduce your vampire".
> > That is not legal? I.e., once I have played the Conditioning, since I
> > played it as I was declaring the action, aren't I still declaring the
> > action?
>
> No. Conditioning is not played during the declaration of the action.
> If you've played conditioning, then you must've finished with
> announcing the action, since Conditioning is played later.
>
> Announce the action: Vampire A (tapping) bleeds my prey.
> <Little window to play as-action-is-announced effects, like Seduction>
>
> Post-announcement:
> Modify the action (both acting Meth as well as blocking Meth, in addition
> to any other Meth's capable of interfering). e.g. Conditioning, Dawn Op,
> etc.
>
> Resolve block attempts, if any (interspersed with more modifiers as above).
>
> If all blocks are over (and unsuccessful),
> Modify some more.
>
> Resolve the action.
This is how I expressed seduction was meant to be played. If it was otherwise
the restriction of Concoction of Vitality from playing further disciplinary
cards would be pointless since you could just play them before you burn the
concoction (which is done at the anouncing of the action)
I was the unfortunate victim of this rules burn, pushing me into 3rd rather
than 2nd place.
Bradley
Las Vegas Primogen