Rotschreck card

Could anyone give me a clarification of how the Rotschreck card is played/when it is used? thanks in advance

In article <3b2vp0$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] The card is played during combat (when it's not your turn) on a vampire who is about to *deal* aggravated damage. That vampire is pretty much hosed for a while. It's best used against a deck that has vampires that like to deal aggravated damage. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

Joe Cochran <js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote: >The card is played during combat (when it's not your turn) on a vampire >who is about to *deal* aggravated damage. That vampire is pretty much >hosed for a while. It's best used against a deck that has vampires that >like to deal aggravated damage. That what I thought also, but if you read the card, it kind of implies that the vamp that is about to be hit by aggravated damage is the one that gets put in torpor. Also, in the Checklist v5.4, it implies the same thing(the vamp. about to get hit by aggravated damage is put in torpor) Next question, what happens when a minion(specifically an ally such as the renegade garou or gypsies) is put in torpor via paralyzation items such as the ring of rowan?

Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] A minion will go into regular torpor, just as explained in the rules. An ally will NEVER go into torpor. They are simply destroyrd/killed/burned. Only a vampire can go into torpor. I don't rememberif they state that clearly in the rules, but if you ever played Vampire:The Masquarade you'd see where I'm coming from. I would suggest that paralyzation items simply do their damage and nothing else to allies. -Ashe Clan Nosferatu "You do not know me if you think I am afraid, or that I build my burrow simply out of fear." -Franz Kafka

In article <3bb207$j...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>, Giorgo Papantonis <st93...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote: >A minion will go into regular torpor, just as explained in the rules. An >ally will NEVER go into torpor. They are simply destroyrd/killed/burned. >Only a vampire can go into torpor. I don't rememberif they state that >clearly in the rules, but if you ever played Vampire:The Masquarade you'd >see where I'm coming from. I would suggest that paralyzation items simply >do their damage and nothing else to allies. I know a minion will never go into torpor(yes it was clearly stated in the rules). My question was regarding items that paralyze(that being there _only_ effect, ie they don't do any normal damage, just paralyze) What happens to an _ally_ that is paralyzed? Does it die does it get sent to an "alternative torpor" (where it is stuck and needs to be rescued but isn't actually in "torpor") or what?

In article <3bavqs$g...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >Joe Cochran <js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote: >>The card is played during combat (when it's not your turn) on a vampire >>who is about to *deal* aggravated damage. That vampire is pretty much >>hosed for a while. It's best used against a deck that has vampires that >>like to deal aggravated damage. >That what I thought also, but if you read the card, it kind of implies that >the vamp that is about to be hit by aggravated damage is the one that gets put >in torpor. In the Errata section of the Duelist #3, it says that the vampire who is about to receive the damage gets hosed. Mere days after the Duelist #3 came out, Tom posted in alt.games.jyhad that that was incorrect, and that the vampire who is about to deal the damage is hosed. That is what I'm basing my statement on. [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu (Joe Cochran) writes: >In article <3b2vp0$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, >Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >> Could anyone give me a clarification of how the Rotschreck card is >>played/when it is used? >>thanks in advance >> >The card is played during combat (when it's not your turn) on a vampire >who is about to *deal* aggravated damage. That vampire is pretty much >hosed for a while. It's best used against a deck that has vampires that >like to deal aggravated damage. Actually, I thought it was used on a vampire that would be *DEALT* aggravated damage. Here's what the card says: MASTER: OUT OF TURN Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a vampire, whether successfully or not. Combat ends before damage is resolved. That vampire is put in torpor, tapped, with this card on it. During the vampire's next untap phase, burn this card instread [sic] of untapping the vampire. From this, the card is played on the vampire... i.e. the entity being damaged in the first setence. Keep in mind, that aggravated damage that removes all the blood from a vampire and then some BURNS the vampire after the round is resolved, where normal damage that removes all the blood from a vampire and then some sends it to torpor. (Can someone confirm this?) Rotschreck seems to be a card that protects vampires that are about to be burned. However, I can see this used as a weapon to keep a vampire in torpor for a couple of rounds. I could be wrong, and I probably am. If I am wrong, then the card is poorly worded. K!z!K

In article <brianm.7...@wopr.gsm.uci.edu>, Brian MacDonald <bri...@wopr.gsm.uci.edu> wrote: > Keep in mind, that aggravated damage that removes all the blood > from a vampire and then some BURNS the vampire after the round > is resolved, where normal damage that removes all the blood > from a vampire and then some sends it to torpor. (Can someone > confirm this?) > Aggravated damage send the vampire to torpor immediately. The first point of aggravated damage doesn't even remove a blood, it's the torpor shot. The only time a vampire is immediately burned is when there's more than one point of aggravated damage and the vampire doesn't have the blood to compensate for it all. It doesn't remove all of the blood unless you do N+1 points where N is the number of blood on the vampire you're hitting with the damage. And to burn the vampire, you have to do N+2 in aggravated points. [ quoted text not captured ]

The question about this card pertains to the errata published here and on the www. The wording of the card implies the vampire doing the aggravated damage is affected. In the errata it seems the opposite, that the vampire receiving aggravated damage is affected. Which is correct? That is the question.

>>> Could anyone give me a clarification of how the Rotschreck card is >>>played/when it is used? >>>thanks in advance In the game Vampire:The Masquarade, the word Rotschreck means more-or- less "incontrollable fear" and is brought on by certain things like fire or the prospect of suffering unhealable damage (which is the reason to fear fire, as well.) In the game, 99% of the time Rotschreck affects a vampire facing some horrible fate, causing said vampire to berserkly jump out windows and run at 30mph for 6 blocks. The other 1% of the time, a vampire will be trying to use a flamethrower as a weapon and will get frightened as (s)he turns it on. I quote a previous poster who explains how the card's wording says the same thing (it affects a vampire about to receive damage): > Actually, I thought it was used on a vampire that would be > *DEALT* aggravated damage. > Here's what the card says: > > MASTER: OUT OF TURN > Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a > vampire, whether successfully or not. Combat ends before damage > is resolved. That vampire is put in torpor, tapped, with this > card on it. During the vampire's next untap phase, burn this > card instread [sic] of untapping the vampire. > Keep in mind, that aggravated damage that removes all the blood > from a vampire and then some BURNS the vampire after the round > is resolved, where normal damage that removes all the blood > from a vampire and then some sends it to torpor. (Can someone > confirm this?) Yes, but you have to be careful. The first point of aggravated damage sends it to torpor, the rest splash blood around and any extra destroy the victim. It's easy to think a 3-blood vampire is killed by a 4-point aggravated strike, but it takes 5. > Rotschreck seems to be a card that protects vampires that are > about to be burned. Played as written, it's a way to prevent anyone from getting away from your claws. A claw strike puts the victim in torpor, whereas Rotschreck puts them in torpor for an extra turn, so it's not a bad weapon. It's best use is when the victim has armour, fortitude and/or a dangerous HtH attack. Rotschreck negates the armour and the fortitude and saves your vampire from taking the nasty strike, making it amazingly effective in the right circumstances. The design team ruling has got me completely confused (that Rotschreck affects the vampire about to _deal_ the damage.) There are already lots of ways around aggravated damage -- maneuvers are easiest since most agg. damage is from claws; Fortitude works fine; weapons are expensive and can be stolen or burned (like Flamethrowers.) Agg. damage isn't really all that bad, even, for what you pay to be able to do it. There's no V:tM rational why it would work that way. It's like having a card named "find lots of money" that made a vampire lose 2 blood and the explaination, "someone else finds lots of that vampire's money."

In <brianm.7...@wopr.gsm.uci.edu>, bri...@wopr.gsm.uci.edu (Brian MacDonald) writes: >js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu (Joe Cochran) writes: > >>In article <3b2vp0$2...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, >>Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >>> Could anyone give me a clarification of how the Rotschreck card is >>>played/when it is used? >>>thanks in advance >> > Actually, I thought it was used on a vampire that would be > *DEALT* aggravated damage. > > > Rotschreck seems to be a card that protects vampires that are > about to be burned. > However, I can see this used as a weapon to keep a vampire in > torpor for a couple of rounds. > > > I could be wrong, and I probably am. If I am wrong, then the > card is poorly worded. > Yes, you are. Yes, it is. The true and final description is destined for Duelist #4 (since they screwed it up again when it went into #3) !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 r...@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

Rotschreck is used against a minion about to deal aggravated damage. The concept is essentially that the Methuselah is punishing the vampire for attempting to use that sort of thing, by confronting them with the horror of what they're about to do. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >My question was regarding items that paralyze(that being there _only_ effect, >ie they don't do any normal damage, just paralyze) >What happens to an _ally_ that is paralyzed? Paralyze effects are essentially useless against non-vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

OK, I'm gonna tally up the votes for what Rotschreck does... *DEALER* freaks out: Supposed to be supported in Duelist #4 Supposed to be supported by design team errata *VICTIM* freaks out: The wording of the Rotschreck card Supported in Duelist #3 I personally haven't the design team errata yet or Duelist #4, so I'm not saying that one of them is definitely right. I'd say until Duelist #4 comes out, we have to assume the *VICTIM* freaks out. The rules say that the card's wording takes priority over the rules, and one publication has definitely said that the card is played on the vampire _receiving_ damage. Unless, there's another publication that definitely supports the *DEALER*-freaks-out theory... K!z!K

In article <brianm.7...@wopr.gsm.uci.edu>, Brian MacDonald <bri...@wopr.gsm.uci.edu> wrote: > > OK, I'm gonna tally up the votes for what Rotschreck does... > > I'd say until Duelist #4 comes out, we have to assume the > *VICTIM* freaks out. The rules say that the card's wording takes > priority over the rules, and one publication has definitely said > that the card is played on the vampire _receiving_ damage. > > Unless, there's another publication that definitely supports the > *DEALER*-freaks-out theory... > Gee, a message from the Wizards network representative detailing exactly what happened when the rules people read the error in the Duelist doesn't count as something that supports the dealer freaks out theory? And FYI, the card has *always* been read in my gaming circles as the dealer freaks out, so I don't think that the wording helps much here. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> OK, I'm gonna tally up the votes for what Rotschreck does... >> >> I'd say until Duelist #4 comes out, we have to assume the >> *VICTIM* freaks out. The rules say that the card's wording takes >> priority over the rules, and one publication has definitely said >> that the card is played on the vampire _receiving_ damage. >> >> Unless, there's another publication that definitely supports the >> *DEALER*-freaks-out theory... >Gee, a message from the Wizards network representative detailing exactly >what happened when the rules people read the error in the Duelist doesn't >count as something that supports the dealer freaks out theory? >And FYI, the card has *always* been read in my gaming circles as the >dealer freaks out, so I don't think that the wording helps much here. When first playing it, I played it that way. Here's the two points that changed my mind. (Niether are WotC rulings as I'm still waiting for them to make up their mind and publish something that isn't retracted immediatly.) 1) From a Vamp: the Masqurade playing friend, Rotschreck is apparently a massive fear, especially of sunlight or fire, i.e. stuff that does aggrivated damage. Hence, the argument is that the *victim* runs away for a long time and can't be controlled for a long while (2 turns as the card reads). This is week as game mechanics frequently have nothing to do with the sourses the game is based on. 2) The card text. It is admittedly obscure but here's what it says: "Play when a minion attempts to use aggrivated damage against a vampire, whether successfully or not. Combat ends before damage is resolved. The vampire is put in torpor, tapped, with this card on it. During the vampire's next untap phase, burn this card instead of untapping the vampire." Note that, in the first sentence, the *dealer* of the damage is refered to as a _minion_, whereas the *victim* is refered to as a _vampire_. Also note, that further on, when describing what happens to whoever it is that gets hosed by this card, it always describes the one getting hosed as _the vampire_, thus the *victim* from the first sentence. Secondly on this point is that this card could be played if my Slashers, armed with a Flamethrower, attacked, say, Brazil. If the dealer is supposed to get hosed, that would mean the Slashers would have to go to torpor! This, of course, can't happen, my Slashers are mortal. Thus, my mind is pretty much made up. Unless there is serious errata to this card, I say the *victim* gets hosed. Any counter arguments? Don Sowell

Before I could do anything to stop it, Brian MacDonald wrote: > I'd say until Duelist #4 comes out, we have to assume the > *VICTIM* freaks out. The rules say that the card's wording takes > priority over the rules, and one publication has definitely said > that the card is played on the vampire _receiving_ damage. Although I'd *like* it better if you could play the card on the vampire dealing the damage, another point that supports it being played on a vamp about to *receive* aggravated damage is that the aggravated damage could come from a minion who is *not* a vampire. It says, "Play when a minion attempts to use aggravated damage against a vampire." -- He did not wear his scarlet coat, | 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 |