Hello,
What happen if I use a card that says either "name a vampire" or "choose
a vampire", but the vampire has no real name like Aabbt Kindred, Fida'i,
Embraced, Progeny, or Creation?
Let say Contract for example, do I have to point a specific Fida'i, or
all the Fida'i are fit for the Contract. What about Incriminating
Videotape/Baleful Doll?
GP41
>What happen if I use a card that says either "name a vampire" or "choose
>a vampire", but the vampire has no real name like Aabbt Kindred, Fida'i,
>Embraced, Progeny, or Creation?
It refers to a specific vampire card. So you choose this Aabt Kindred, that
Aabt Kindred, or the Aabt Kindred over there. You might say the Fida'i with the
Quietus card, the Fida'i with the Obfuscate card, or the torpored Fida'i. Or
for Embraces, you may choose the Pikachu, the Charmander, or the Jigglypuff.
;)
>Let say Contract for example, do I have to point a specific Fida'i, or
>all the Fida'i are fit for the Contract. What about Incriminating
>Videotape/Baleful Doll?
Once again you refer to a particular vampire card. Let's say you choose Fatima
for your contract. She gets burned and you influence out a new Fatima. This new
Fatima is not considered to be the same Fatima who was originally chosen for
that contract.
Hope this helps.
Halcyan 2
> Or for Embraces, you may choose the Pikachu, the Charmander, or the Jigglypuff.
> ;)
>
Is there any Pikachu Vamp?
> >Let say Contract for example, do I have to point a specific Fida'i, or
> >all the Fida'i are fit for the Contract. What about Incriminating
> >Videotape/Baleful Doll?
>
> Once again you refer to a particular vampire card. Let's say you choose Fatima
> for your contract. She gets burned and you influence out a new Fatima. This new
> Fatima is not considered to be the same Fatima who was originally chosen for
> that contract.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Halcyan 2
Yes it does, thank you.
But! What if my original Fatima has being Banished, and now I'm stock
with 2 Fatimas in my uncontrolled region. Do I really have to bring the
original one out, or the other one would be fine? Does the card naming
a specific vampire is burned after Banishment?
In a contested matter, I always tought that if a vamp was contested, the
vamp would go to the strongest of the 2 Meth contesting it. It is thus
far, the same vamp right?
Sorry if I insist on the subject.
GP41
"GP41" <GP...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3BB72A58...@videotron.ca...
> > Or for Embraces, you may choose the Pikachu, the Charmander, or the Jigglypuff.
> > ;)
> >
>
> Is there any Pikachu Vamp?
A number of people will play with proxy cards.
One player in Atlanta will replace his proxy cards with Pokemon cards
once they enter play. It is not uncommon to have Pikachu bleed for one
or play a Night Moves.
> > >Let say Contract for example, do I have to point a specific Fida'i, or
> > >all the Fida'i are fit for the Contract. What about Incriminating
> > >Videotape/Baleful Doll?
> >
> > Once again you refer to a particular vampire card. Let's say you choose Fatima
> > for your contract. She gets burned and you influence out a new Fatima. This new
> > Fatima is not considered to be the same Fatima who was originally chosen for
> > that contract.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Halcyan 2
>
> Yes it does, thank you.
>
> But! What if my original Fatima has being Banished, and now I'm stock
> with 2 Fatimas in my uncontrolled region. Do I really have to bring the
> original one out, or the other one would be fine? Does the card naming
> a specific vampire is burned after Banishment?
A card naming a specific vampire has no further effect if the vampire
leaves play in any fashion (so long as it wasn't played on the vampire
that leaves play).
If the victim of a Contract is banished and then returns to play, the
Contract will still be there and usable by the Assamite.
If an Assamite leaves play (Banishment, Reality) any Contracts naming that
Assamite are effectively null and void, but the Contracts do not
technically leave play.
A specific instance of the named vampire in play is targetted by any card
that requires you to name a vampire. If that vampire leaves play and
re-enters play, it isn't considered to be the same vampire unless the card
naming them was also played on them.
> In a contested matter, I always tought that if a vamp was contested, the
> vamp would go to the strongest of the 2 Meth contesting it. It is thus
> far, the same vamp right?
No.
So a contested vampire won by the second Methuselah to bring it into
play will not be able to gain blood from the Rack that targeted the
first vampire, nor will it be able to act on Contracts that the first
one was named for, nor will it be the victim of any Anathema voted onto
the first one.
> Sorry if I insist on the subject.
Stay on it until you know it. :>
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:21:12 -0400, GP41 <GP...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Or for Embraces, you may choose the Pikachu, the Charmander, or the Jigglypuff.
>> ;)
>>>
>Is there any Pikachu Vamp?
When I play embrace proxies, there is ;-)
"Hog up all the card stock, will you? Then you work for ME, *#%&!"
hehe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
> If an Assamite leaves play (Banishment, Reality) any Contracts
> naming that Assamite are effectively null and void, but the
> Contracts do not technically leave play.
Is there any reason/ruling that says so? Just in case somebody would
argue.
> A specific instance of the named vampire in play is targetted by
> any card that requires you to name a vampire. If that vampire
> leaves play and re-enters play, it isn't considered to be the same
> vampire unless the card naming them was also played on them.
How would you explain this in a tournament so that no one would argue.
GP41
GP41 wrote:
>
> > If an Assamite leaves play (Banishment, Reality) any Contracts
> > naming that Assamite are effectively null and void, but the
> > Contracts do not technically leave play.
>
> Is there any reason/ruling that says so? Just in case somebody would
> argue.
Lots of them have appeared on the NG in the past.
Here's another: Lasombra is correct.
>
> > A specific instance of the named vampire in play is targetted by
> > any card that requires you to name a vampire. If that vampire
> > leaves play and re-enters play, it isn't considered to be the same
> > vampire unless the card naming them was also played on them.
>
> How would you explain this in a tournament so that no one would argue.
The above seems adequate.
--
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/
> A specific instance of the named vampire in play is targetted by any card
> that requires you to name a vampire. If that vampire leaves play and
> re-enters play, it isn't considered to be the same vampire unless the card
> naming them was also played on them.
How does this work with a Tory Grand Ball? I've not got one, but in a
recent game (using proxies) My Delialah was Made uncontrolled by a
superior reality. She was able to take unblocable actions, no i bring
her back out, is she still unblockable? How about if she'd been the
recipient of the taps from TGB? Would the balls still be in play?
Cameron
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:47:39 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Cameron wrote:>>
>> her back out, is she still unblockable? How about if she'd been the
>> recipient of the taps from TGB? Would the balls still be in play?>
>No. Yes. "Balls" doesn't care if "the recipient of the taps" remains in play.
So let me get this straight. It's legal to tap your balls whether or
not they're in play? Or is it only OK to tap the RECEIPIENT of your
balls?
Or maybe your balls are unblockable once they're in play. Or out of
play. I'm not sure. I'm confused. Or possessed by the spirit of the
Googler, maybe... I HAVE been having strange dreams about Oscar, a quart
of motor oil, and potato skins lately, and that might be it.
-- dER3k!
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message
news:1djhrt0g354b4bggn...@4ax.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
can i shuffle your deck?
hehehe
Oscar
if you were in the van on the way to the bar, you know what i'm talking
about.
> -- dER3k!
>
Derek Ray wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:47:39 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >No. Yes. "Balls" doesn't care if "the recipient of the taps" remains in play.
>
> So let me get this straight. It's legal to tap your balls whether or
> not they're in play? Or is it only OK to tap the RECEIPIENT of your
> balls?
I doubt Scott is going to touch those things.
I mean the questions.
Or anything.
Fred
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> GP41 wrote:
> >
> > > If an Assamite leaves play (Banishment, Reality) any Contracts
> > > naming that Assamite are effectively null and void, but the
> > > Contracts do not technically leave play.
> >
> > Is there any reason/ruling that says so? Just in case somebody would
> > argue.
>
> Lots of them have appeared on the NG in the past.
> Here's another: Lasombra is correct.
>
> >
> > > A specific instance of the named vampire in play is targetted by
> > > any card that requires you to name a vampire. If that vampire
> > > leaves play and re-enters play, it isn't considered to be the same
> > > vampire unless the card naming them was also played on them.
> >
> > How would you explain this in a tournament so that no one would argue.
>
> The above seems adequate.
If Lupo is named Brujah Justicar, and is subsequently Banished,
will Lupo be the Brujah Justicar when he is returned to play?
Does the answer to this question hold for all of the Praxis
Seizures as well?
- Jason Bell
[ quoted text not captured ]
OK. So I (and Lasombra) overstated matters where Banishment/Reality is
concerned (going by the ancient Banishment ruling - before [01-MAY-2000]
Banishment/Reality operates more like contesting. The stuff Lasombra said
applies to burned vampires.
* A Banished vampire will remember all effects that had been applied to him,
just as contested vampires do. This includes gained or lost titles, etc.
[RTR 20000501]
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > If Lupo is named Brujah Justicar, and is subsequently Banished,
> > will Lupo be the Brujah Justicar when he is returned to play?
> >
> > Does the answer to this question hold for all of the Praxis
> > Seizures as well?
>
> OK. So I (and Lasombra) overstated matters where Banishment/Reality is
> concerned (going by the ancient Banishment ruling - before [01-MAY-2000]
>
> Banishment/Reality operates more like contesting. The stuff Lasombra said
> applies to burned vampires.
>
> * A Banished vampire will remember all effects that had been applied to him,
> just as contested vampires do. This includes gained or lost titles, etc.
> [RTR 20000501]
>
Same thing for cards effect like Incriminating Videotape? Contract
choosing an Assamite? And so on?
And if the answer is "yes", I guess that it will have to be the same
Vampire card for that matter. Right?
GP41
GP41 wrote:
>
> > > If Lupo is named Brujah Justicar, and is subsequently Banished,
> > > will Lupo be the Brujah Justicar when he is returned to play?
> > >
> > > Does the answer to this question hold for all of the Praxis
> > > Seizures as well?
> >
> > OK. So I (and Lasombra) overstated matters where Banishment/Reality is
> > concerned (going by the ancient Banishment ruling - before [01-MAY-2000]
> >
> > Banishment/Reality operates more like contesting. The stuff Lasombra said
> > applies to burned vampires.
> >
> > * A Banished vampire will remember all effects that had been applied to him,
> > just as contested vampires do. This includes gained or lost titles, etc.
> > [RTR 20000501]
> >
>
> Same thing for cards effect like Incriminating Videotape? Contract
> choosing an Assamite? And so on?
"all effects", as stated.
> And if the answer is "yes", I guess that it will have to be the same
> Vampire card for that matter. Right?
Of course.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> And if the answer is "yes", I guess that it will have to be the same
>> Vampire card for that matter. Right?>
>Of course.
Though I suppose it might be a bit confusing if an empty vampire who has
yielded his natural title is Banished and you have a second copy of him. How do
you convince people that this is a *new* copy of him (as opposed to the
originally Banished one)? Call a judge over I suppose?
Halcyan 2