Attonement Question

We saw the first use of Attonement during play tonight, and a few questions quickly arose. Here's the card text for your convience: Attonement Requires a ready vampire with a capacity below 6. +1 stealth action Put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire gets +1 intercept when attempting to block. He or she does not tap when blocking a vampire of the same age of younger. This card may be burned by any vampire as a (D) action; Follwers of Set get -1 stealth when attempting that action. First: if a five pool vampire is given Attonement, and later is given a skill card (making him 6 pool), can he still use it? It says it requires a vampire with a capacity below 6, and that usually just applies to bringing the card in to play. But since it stays on the vampire, if it's capacity changes, does it loose the abilities? And then, if you capacity later went down again (you lost a clan special title, or someone hit you with Weakness), would you get the abilities back? Second: this is sort of a stupid question. If you have a vampire with Attonement one it, who is tapped, can he still block vampires that are younger than he/she? I looked in the (Jyhad) rules book, but I didn't see anywhere where it says that you must be untapped to attempt to block, only that you must tap to block. And if the card says you don't have to tap to block, can the tapped vampire with Attonement block? This question also applies to Justine - Elder of Dallas. -- Modest, industrious, benevolent, temperate: is that how you would have men? Good men? But to me that seems only the ideal slave, the slave of the future. Modesty, industiousness, benevolence, temperance are just so many hinderances to a sovereign disposition, great inventiveness, heroic purposefullness, noble being-for-oneself. --Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power" /------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | You don't get what you deserve, | Good people are good because they | | You get what you take. | are not strong enought to be evil.| |-----------------------------------+------------------------------------| | Conflicts between right and wrong | 'Conscience' is nothing more than | | are a sickness of the mind. | the fear of being caught. | \------------------------------------------------------------------------/

From: Harry Smith <hsm...@garfield.msms.doe.k12.ms.us> > Attonement > Requires a ready vampire with a capacity below 6. > +1 stealth action > Put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire gets +1 intercept when > attempting to block. He or she does not tap when blocking a vampire of > the same age of younger. This card may be burned by any vampire as a (D) > action; Follwers of Set get -1 stealth when attempting that action. > First: if a five pool vampire is given Attonement, and later is given a > skill card (making him 6 pool), can he still use it? It says it > requires a vampire with a capacity below 6, and that usually just > applies to bringing the card in to play. But since it stays on the > vampire, if it's capacity changes, does it loose the abilities? And > then, if you capacity later went down again (you lost a clan special > title, or someone hit you with Weakness), would you get the abilities back? I don't think that this card would be lost. Unlike cards like Camarilla exemplary (which is forbidden on non-Camarilla vampires), this card only questions the state of the vampire as the card is played (requiring a small vamp). Later on, a Camarilla Exemplary would be removed because it cannot be on non-Cams. I don't think an Atonement would be lost, because it only requires vamps as it comes into play. > Second: this is sort of a stupid question. If you have a vampire with > Attonement one it, who is tapped, can he still block vampires that are > younger than he/she? I looked in the (Jyhad) rules book, but I didn't > see anywhere where it says that you must be untapped to attempt to block, > only that you must tap to block. And if the card says you don't have to > tap to block, can the tapped vampire with Attonement block? No. Attempting to block is a cardless reaction. Unless you play WwEF, you cannot attempt a reaction if tapped. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&_+ PE&-&++ z*+?

Harry Smith <hsm...@garfield.msms.doe.k12.ms.us> wrote: >Attonement >Requires a ready vampire with a capacity below 6. >+1 stealth action >Put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire gets +1 intercept when >attempting to block. He or she does not tap when blocking a vampire of >the same age of younger. This card may be burned by any vampire as a (D) >action; Follwers of Set get -1 stealth when attempting that action. > >First: if a five pool vampire is given Attonement, and later is given a >skill card (making him 6 pool), can he still use it?... Yes. As always, the requirement to play a card just applies to bringing the card into play, not to keeping it in play. Atonement will remain on the vampire, and be fully functional. >Second: this is sort of a stupid question. If you have a vampire with >Attonement one it, who is tapped, can he still block vampires that are >younger than he/she? I looked in the (Jyhad) rules book, but I didn't >see anywhere where it says that you must be untapped to attempt to block, >only that you must tap to block. And if the card says you don't have to >tap to block, can the tapped vampire with Attonement block? Tapped vampires cannot block, unless of course they use an effect like Wake. The ability to not tap when blocking does not allow a minion to block while tapped; it just allows the minion to block repeatedly while untapped. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:09:33 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >No. Attempting to block is a cardless reaction. Unless you play WwEF, >you cannot attempt a reaction if tapped. > Very consice and nice defination. Rory The Ref at refplace.best.com

On 18 Jun 1996, Harry Smith wrote > Attonement > Requires a ready vampire with a capacity below 6. > +1 stealth action > Put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire gets +1 intercept when > attempting to block. He or she does not tap when blocking a vampire of > the same age of younger. This card may be burned by any vampire as a (D) > action; Follwers of Set get -1 stealth when attempting that action. > > First: if a five pool vampire is given Attonement, and later is given a > skill card (making him 6 pool), can he still use it? It says it > requires a vampire with a capacity below 6, and that usually just > applies to bringing the card in to play. But since it stays on the It would be consistent with the spirit of past rulings to believe that once Atonement is brought out on a vampire, the effects of Atonement should continue to occur despite later changes in the capacity of that vampire as you have mentioned. However, clarification of the ruling for this particular card would be helpful. > Second: this is sort of a stupid question. If you have a vampire with > Attonement one it, who is tapped, can he still block vampires that are > younger than he/she? I looked in the (Jyhad) rules book, but I didn't > see anywhere where it says that you must be untapped to attempt to block, > only that you must tap to block. And if the card says you don't have to > tap to block, can the tapped vampire with Attonement block? > > This question also applies to Justine - Elder of Dallas. > According to section 6.3.2 (Blocking an Action) of the V:TES rules: "To block an action, you simply tap one of your *UNTAPPED* minions and declare that he is blocking the action. You cannot block actions that are targeted at another player or one of his minions." It would therefore appear that you DO have to be untapped to attempt to block an action. In the case of Justine or a vampire using Atonement, it is clear that the blocking vampire does not tap when blocking certain vampires as stated. However, the fact that they do not have to tap when blocking these certain vampires does not (IMHO) imply that they may break the usual rule that says a vampire needs to be untapped in order to attempt to block an action. ejl