Some rulings that should get cleaned up.

I was going through the errata and rulings pages, and here's some observations on what I've seen so far. Some of it just strikes me as odd and some of it is contradictory to other rulings. I'd appreciate your feedback, Scott. Noal ------------------- Inner Circle members cannot be targeted by the Blood Hunt action card. [RTR 19960124] Why the special dispensation for IC Members? This is the only card that IC Members were added in addition to Prince & Justicar. ------------------- A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of a certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah he bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 19960530] One bonus is from a static state and the other is from a transient state. Why does one imply the other and not the reverse? It seems to me that the two are seperate occurrences and should be treated as such. ------------------- Ignore the "untap this acting vampire" on Force of Will. The tapped acting vampire bleeds at +1/+2. [RTR 19960530] Was this done to specify that the vampire was still tapped when the action was complete? ------------------- Major Boon cannot be played by the controller of the acting minion. [RTR 19980707] Done to eliminate use with Madness Network? ------------------- Wooden Stake - Equipment New card text: "Melee Weapon. This weapon inflicts strength damage as a strike. If more than 1 damage is inflicted on the opposing vampire by this weapon in a given combat, then that vampire is sent to torpor. In that case, this card is transferred to him and he does not untap as normal during the untap phase as long as he remains in torpor." [RTR 19990105] I have a problem with "This weapon inflicts strength damage as a strike." The whole "strength damage" concept is lost on people who haven't followed the news group in a while. A better wording would be, "This weapon inflicts X damage as a strike, where X is the current hand damage of the minion." Open to suggestions, of course. ------------------- If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the action is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a circumstance that would produce this effect other than blocking and burning a vampire and that's handled normally. ------------------- Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action are used after the action is completed, including any oustings. [RTR 19970630] Isn't this a redundant ruling? ------------------- If an effect "sets" the range of a round (and therefore skips the maneuver phase), no other effect can be used to reset the range. [RTR 19970630] What about another card that "sets" the range? Two Lasombra vampires using Shadow Step, for example. ------------------- The damage modifier must be played before the end of the Choose Strike phase in order to affect the current strike. [RTR 19960112] Isn't this in contradiction to the rules regarding Wolf Claws, etc. and ammo cards? In fact, the ruling quoted specifies Wolf Claws. ------------------- Damage done to an uncontrolled vampire is ignored. [RTR 19991001] I didn't see what this referred to in the quoted rulings set. Either way, how would this occur so that such a ruling is necessary? ------------------- If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. [RTR 19960708] Seems rather subjective. Perhaps a spefic order should be set. ------------------- A vampire's capacity can never be reduced below one, even by the effects of Violet Tremain, Mind of a Child, or Purity of the Beast. [RTR 19990712] A vampire's capacity can never be less than zero. [LSJ 19990114] Do we really need to keep the 2nd one on the books? ------------------- -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8di9b1$5i0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >Inner Circle members cannot be targeted by the Blood Hunt action card. >[RTR 19960124] > >Why the special dispensation for IC Members? This is the only card that >IC Members were added in addition to Prince & Justicar. True. I care very little either way whether it stays or goes, from a total amount of errata/rulings point of view, however. >A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of a >certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah he >bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 19960530] > >One bonus is from a static state and the other is from a transient >state. Why does one imply the other and not the reverse? It seems to me >that the two are seperate occurrences and should be treated as such. It is essentially a re-write of: "This vampire gets +1 bleed if your prey controls X" to "This vampire gets +1 bleed if the Methuselah he is bleeding controls X". Your prey always has the choice of what vampires to bring out, when he sees your vampire come out. The Methuselah you are bleeding (in the case of bounces, say) does not. >------------------- >Ignore the "untap this acting vampire" on Force of Will. The tapped >acting vampire bleeds at +1/+2. [RTR 19960530] > >Was this done to specify that the vampire was still tapped when the >action was complete? I think there are some corner cases of "The acting vampire does not tap" effects, whereby FoW allows them to remain untapped, in conjunction with that. >------------------- >Major Boon cannot be played by the controller of the acting minion. >[RTR 19980707] > >Done to eliminate use with Madness Network? IIRC, yes. >------------------- >Wooden Stake - Equipment >New card text: "Melee Weapon. This weapon inflicts strength damage as a >strike. If more than 1 damage is inflicted on the opposing vampire by >this weapon in a given combat, then that vampire is sent to torpor. In >that case, this card is transferred to him and he does not untap as >normal during the untap phase as long as he remains in torpor." [RTR >19990105] > >I have a problem with "This weapon inflicts strength damage as a >strike." The whole "strength damage" concept is lost on people who >haven't followed the news group in a while. A better wording would be, >"This weapon inflicts X damage as a strike, where X is the current hand >damage of the minion." Open to suggestions, of course. I find the entire Strength concept "interesting". It helps alleviate some problems, but introduces new ones - because when you explain the errata to someone, they won't instinctively know what that means *but* if they know what that means, it shortens it down considerably. >------------------- >If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the action >is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] > >What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a circumstance >that would produce this effect other than blocking and burning a vampire >and that's handled normally. Erm, I recall one of the Serpentis ones doing it, but can't find any that would now. :( >------------------- >Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action are >used after the action is completed, including any oustings. >[RTR 19970630] > >Isn't this a redundant ruling? No. What happens if I oust myself playing an Unnatural Disaster? Does the location burn? The ruling is needed to clear that up. >------------------- >If an effect "sets" the range of a round (and therefore skips the >maneuver phase), no other effect can be used to reset the range. >[RTR 19970630] > >What about another card that "sets" the range? Two Lasombra vampires >using Shadow Step, for example. The acting vampire has, as always, the first opportunity to play the card. If they allow the other vampire to play a card, the other vampire can play Shadow Step. Whichever one is played first sets the range. >------------------- >The damage modifier must be played before the end of the Choose Strike >phase in order to affect the current strike. [RTR 19960112] > >Isn't this in contradiction to the rules regarding Wolf Claws, etc. and >ammo cards? In fact, the ruling quoted specifies Wolf Claws. No, because there is a gap between the choosing of your card and the end of the phase. >------------------- >Damage done to an uncontrolled vampire is ignored. [RTR 19991001] > >I didn't see what this referred to in the quoted rulings set. Either >way, how would this occur so that such a ruling is necessary? Banish yourself, with a Daring the Dawn. >------------------- >If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides >whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. >[RTR 19960708] > >Seems rather subjective. Perhaps a spefic order should be set. It simply means you get to choose whether you pass through torpor first, or not. Which can be useful, re: Fame. >------------------- >A vampire's capacity can never be reduced below one, even by the effects >of Violet Tremain, Mind of a Child, or Purity of the Beast. >[RTR 19990712] >A vampire's capacity can never be less than zero. [LSJ 19990114] > >Do we really need to keep the 2nd one on the books? No. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.zephyr.org.uk

James Coupe wrote: > Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes > >Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action are > >used after the action is completed, including any oustings. > >[RTR 19970630] > > > >Isn't this a redundant ruling? > > No. What happens if I oust myself playing an Unnatural Disaster? Does > the location burn? The ruling is needed to clear that up. Not exactly. Unnatural Disaster is not an action. Master cards resolve when played, so even if you oust yourself playing an Unnatural Disaster, the chosen location would still burn. The ruling above is more designed to cover cases like trying to play Voter Captivation after calling a vote that would oust yourself (with the result being: you cannot play Voter Captivation, since you are already ousted by the time you could). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

Noal McDonald wrote: > > I was going through the errata and rulings pages, and here's some > observations on what I've seen so far. Some of it just strikes me as > odd and some of it is contradictory to other rulings. I'd appreciate > your feedback, Scott. Thanks for the leg work. (Although I did't see any contradictions listed below.) > ------------------- > Inner Circle members cannot be targeted by the Blood Hunt action card. > [RTR 19960124] > > Why the special dispensation for IC Members? This is the only card that > IC Members were added in addition to Prince & Justicar. It was the only card that "should've been" written to include/exclude Inner Circle members - you can't call for a Blood Hunt on an Inner Circle member any more than you can on a P/J. Just as Bonding, Conditioning, and Threats were re-written once other cards that should've been listed came into the RT sphere of awareness. If Blood Hunt gets reprinted, it will have the full correct card text (I imagine). > ------------------- > A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of a > certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah he > bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 19960530] > > One bonus is from a static state and the other is from a transient > state. Why does one imply the other and not the reverse? It seems to me > that the two are seperate occurrences and should be treated as such. Designer intent (intention was that they operate the way they do now). > ------------------- > Ignore the "untap this acting vampire" on Force of Will. The tapped > acting vampire bleeds at +1/+2. [RTR 19960530] > > Was this done to specify that the vampire was still tapped when the > action was complete? Kinda - it was done to reverse the previous ruling that FoW represented two actions: the untap action followed by a bleed. Only actions that serve to untap the acting vampire should say "untap the acting vampire" (cf. Movement of the Slow Body). > ------------------- > Major Boon cannot be played by the controller of the acting minion. > [RTR 19980707] > > Done to eliminate use with Madness Network? Yes. As well as any other future avenues of abuse (say, if some future ruling/errata allowed Master Out-of-Turn cards to be played on one's own turn - not that any such errata is likely). The card clearly should only apply to other Methuselahs' bleeds. > ------------------- > Wooden Stake - Equipment > New card text: "Melee Weapon. This weapon inflicts strength damage as a > strike. If more than 1 damage is inflicted on the opposing vampire by > this weapon in a given combat, then that vampire is sent to torpor. In > that case, this card is transferred to him and he does not untap as > normal during the untap phase as long as he remains in torpor." [RTR > 19990105] > > I have a problem with "This weapon inflicts strength damage as a > strike." The whole "strength damage" concept is lost on people who > haven't followed the news group in a while. A better wording would be, > "This weapon inflicts X damage as a strike, where X is the current hand > damage of the minion." Open to suggestions, of course. The whole "strength" concept is lost on people who don't know about it, sure. Same with most concepts. But using "hand damage" for "strength" is worse, since "hand damage" is used to describe the type of damage done from a hand strike. Using it to also describe the amount of damage done leads to confusion. "Strength" is an easy enough concept to explain (esp. to anyone familiar with RPGs). > ------------------- > If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the action > is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] > > What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a circumstance > that would produce this effect other than blocking and burning a vampire > and that's handled normally. Ex: Infernal Familiar and an action that requires a skill you don't have. Besides, covering every case, even if they never occur, is not a bad thing. > ------------------- > Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action are > used after the action is completed, including any oustings. > [RTR 19970630] > > Isn't this a redundant ruling? Redundant with what? And, if so, redundancy is still not a bad thing. The examples given in the cited RTR are: .... cards that are usable only after a successful political action cannot be played until the votes are tallied, the vote takes effect, and so on. As another example, superior Burnt Offerings can't be played by someone who is ousted by a bleed, since by the time it is legal to play the card (after a successful bleed), that player is out of the game. The first example is the one most commonly raised: Voter Captivation to "save" yourself after a referendum that would otherwise oust you. > ------------------- > If an effect "sets" the range of a round (and therefore skips the > maneuver phase), no other effect can be used to reset the range. > [RTR 19970630] > > What about another card that "sets" the range? Two Lasombra vampires > using Shadow Step, for example. One has to be played first. The acting minion gets first opportunity. Once one of them sets the range, the range cannot be reset. > ------------------- > The damage modifier must be played before the end of the Choose Strike > phase in order to affect the current strike. [RTR 19960112] > > Isn't this in contradiction to the rules regarding Wolf Claws, etc. and > ammo cards? In fact, the ruling quoted specifies Wolf Claws. No. It matches the Wolf Claws and ammo rulings. > ------------------- > Damage done to an uncontrolled vampire is ignored. [RTR 19991001] > > I didn't see what this referred to in the quoted rulings set. Either > way, how would this occur so that such a ruling is necessary? The cited RTR contains the following: Q: What happens to a vampire who uses Daring the Dawn to call Banishment on himself? What does the damage do to him when he is uncontrolled? A: An uncontrolled vampire ignores damage. > ------------------- > If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides > whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. > [RTR 19960708] > > Seems rather subjective. Perhaps a spefic order should be set. No more than a specific order to the way events are handled in the untap phase. The standard rule is that the events are ordered the way the controller/active player chooses. > ------------------- > A vampire's capacity can never be reduced below one, even by the effects > of Violet Tremain, Mind of a Child, or Purity of the Beast. > [RTR 19990712] > A vampire's capacity can never be less than zero. [LSJ 19990114] > > Do we really need to keep the 2nd one on the books? No. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Thanks for the leg work. > (Although I did't see any contradictions listed below.) I'm a bit bored at work today. ;) Most of my response is to James's reply. The only thing that still sticks out are: >> ------------------- >> The damage modifier must be played before the end of the Choose >> Strike phase in order to affect the current strike. [RTR 19960112] > > No. It matches the Wolf Claws and ammo rulings. I think it would be clearer if it stated "before the Resolve Damage phase". The way the cited ruling read, it wasn't clear it could be played after the opposing vampire chose its strike. That's all that really needs to be clarified. >> Seems rather subjective. Perhaps a spefic order should be set. > > No more than a specific order to the way events are handled in the > untap phase. Vampires untap first. All other effects happen at player discretion. So, some of it is ordered. *shrug* I dunno. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy. Thanks Scott, Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38FCBE8D...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: > > Ignore the "untap this acting vampire" on Force of Will. The tapped > > acting vampire bleeds at +1/+2. [RTR 19960530] > > > > Was this done to specify that the vampire was still tapped when the > > action was complete? > > Kinda - it was done to reverse the previous ruling that FoW represented > two actions: the untap action followed by a bleed. > > Only actions that serve to untap the acting vampire should say "untap > the acting vampire" (cf. Movement of the Slow Body). So, in this instance, FoW actually breaks the rule that a minion must be untapped to perform an action. Is right? > > ------------------- > > If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the action > > is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] > > > > What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a circumstance > > that would produce this effect other than blocking and burning a vampire > > and that's handled normally. > > Ex: Infernal Familiar and an action that requires a skill you don't have. > > Besides, covering every case, even if they never occur, is not a > bad thing. > > > ------------------- > > Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action are > > used after the action is completed, including any oustings. > > [RTR 19970630] > > > > Isn't this a redundant ruling? > > Redundant with what? > And, if so, redundancy is still not a bad thing. Maybe is not an inherent bad thing. But with all these erratas sometimes redundancy can be as bad as scarcity in rules. Regards. Aemilianus, Prince of Rome. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, James Coupe wrote: > In article <8di9b1$5i0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- > deja.com> writes > >If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the action > >is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] > > > >What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a circumstance > >that would produce this effect other than blocking and burning a vampire > >and that's handled normally. > > Erm, I recall one of the Serpentis ones doing it, but can't find any > that would now. :( Perhaps you were thinking of Corruption? Players seem to interpret that the corruption counters can be burned at any time. LSJ: is that a correct interpretation? On re-reading the card text, that the "If the number of counters..." clause seems to be in effect as part of the action's resolution, but it doesn't become an ongoing effect set up by the action. So the only time you could burn corruption counters on a vampire would be when succesfully Corrupting it. or not? Card text is: Cardtype: Action Clan: Followers of Set +1 stealth action. (D) Put a corruption counter on a vampire or ally controlled by your prey. If the number of your corruption counters on the minion equals or exceeds the blood capacity of that vampire or the cost of that ally, you may burn all of your corruption counters on that minion to gain control of him or her.

david hathorn wrote: > Perhaps you were thinking of Corruption? [...] the "If the number of > counters..." clause seems to be in effect as part of the action's > resolution, but it doesn't become an ongoing effect set up by the action. > So the only time you could burn corruption counters on a vampire would be > when succesfully Corrupting it. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Noal McDonald wrote: > > > Ignore the "untap this acting vampire" on Force of Will. The tapped > > > acting vampire bleeds at +1/+2. [RTR 19960530] > > > > Only actions that serve to untap the acting vampire should say "untap > > the acting vampire" (cf. Movement of the Slow Body). > > So, in this instance, FoW actually breaks the rule that a minion > must be untapped to perform an action. Is right? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

For some reason, my replay never got posted. *frown* Oh well, let me reply again. > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >> Inner Circle members cannot be targeted by the Blood Hunt action >> card. [RTR 19960124] >> >> Why the special dispensation for IC Members? This is the only card >> that IC Members were added in addition to Prince & Justicar. > > True. I care very little either way whether it stays or goes, from a > total amount of errata/rulings point of view, however. I suppose. It just struck me as being an unneeded addition to the card. I understand the reasoning, but that same reasoning can be applied to all the other P/J cards and it wasn't. >> A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of >> a certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah >> he bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 19960530] >> >> One bonus is from a static state and the other is from a transient >> state. Why does one imply the other and not the reverse? It seems >> to me that the two are seperate occurrences and should be treated as >> such. > > It is essentially a re-write of: > "This vampire gets +1 bleed if your prey controls X" to "This vampire > gets +1 bleed if the Methuselah he is bleeding controls X". > Your prey always has the choice of what vampires to bring out, when he > sees your vampire come out. The Methuselah you are bleeding (in the > case of bounces, say) does not. So? If my prey brings out a Brujah and I control Ranjan Rishi, he should get the +1 bleed regardless of who he bleeds. Conversely, If I have Vasilis out, Giovanni should only be able to get the bonus against players with Brujah. Also, the ruling reads like the rewrite you suggest isn't a replacement of, but rather an addition to, the text. It doesn't say that if my prey controls a Brujah, that Ranjan doesn't get his bonus against my predator, for example. Also how does this ruling affect Suhailah? Does her stealth bonus also apply to any methuselah controlling a Prince or Justicar? If consistency is important, this does set such a precedent. It strikes me that this opens more loopholes than it closes. >> I have a problem with "This weapon inflicts strength damage as a >> strike." The whole "strength damage" concept is lost on people who >> haven't followed the news group in a while. A better wording would >> be, "This weapon inflicts X damage as a strike, where X is the >> current hand damage of the minion." Open to suggestions, of course. > > I find the entire Strength concept "interesting". It helps alleviate > some problems, but introduces new ones - because when you explain the > errata to someone, they won't instinctively know what that means *but* > if they know what that means, it shortens it down considerably. Since the "Strength" term is defined in the updated rulebokk, I withdraw my concern. However, the term "Wounded" does need to be defined as well. >> If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the >> action is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] >> >> What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a >> circumstance that would produce this effect other than blocking and >> burning a vampire and that's handled normally. > > Erm, I recall one of the Serpentis ones doing it, but can't find > any that would now. :( I don't believe it was ever ruled that you could burn Corruption counters to take a vampire except when you successfully completed a Corruption card action. It just sttrikes me as being confusing to new players to have extra rulings on the book when they can never be invoked. >> Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action >> are used after the action is completed, including any oustings. >> [RTR 19970630] >> >> Isn't this a redundant ruling? > > No. What happens if I oust myself playing an Unnatural Disaster? > Does the location burn? The ruling is needed to clear that up. Number one, Unnatural Disaster is not an action. Number two, I can't think of a way to oust myself with it. *shrug* It looks like it was designed to handle a situation like ousting yourself with a KRC vote and an attempt to follow up with Voter Cap. Obviously you get ousted as the action resolves and never get to use the voter cap. I guess that this should be placed in "Clarifications" and could possibly use better wording. >> If an effect "sets" the range of a round (and therefore skips the >> maneuver phase), no other effect can be used to reset the range. >> [RTR 19970630] >> >> What about another card that "sets" the range? Two Lasombra >> vampires using Shadow Step, for example. > > The acting vampire has, as always, the first opportunity to play > the card. If they allow the other vampire to play a card, the other > vampire can play Shadow Step. Whichever one is played first sets > the range. I understood how it works. It just seems like you could use subsequent cards to "reset" the range. But then that would probably defeat the purpose of circumventing maneuvers in the first place. *nods* Okay. Just struck me as odd is all. >> The damage modifier must be played before the end of the Choose >> Strike phase in order to affect the current strike. [RTR 19960112] >> >> Isn't this in contradiction to the rules regarding Wolf Claws, etc. >> and ammo cards? In fact, the ruling quoted specifies Wolf Claws. > > No, because there is a gap between the choosing of your card and the > end of the phase. Hrm. There are several rulings since this that have said "before the Resolve Damage phase." While the wording, "before the end of the Choose Strike phase" is technically correct, it would be better to use the other wording as its intention is more clear. >> Damage done to an uncontrolled vampire is ignored. [RTR 19991001] >> >> I didn't see what this referred to in the quoted rulings set. >> Either way, how would this occur so that such a ruling is necessary? > > Banish yourself, with a Daring the Dawn. *nods* Good call. Didn't think of that. I still didn't see the ruling that it referred to, though. >> If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller >> decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. >>[RTR 19960708] >> >> Seems rather subjective. Perhaps a spefic order should be set. > > It simply means you get to choose whether you pass through torpor > first, or not. Which can be useful, re: Fame. I know what it means. It just seems to me that it should be set in stone how it is handled, is all. *shrug* Prolly just a philosophy differece. >> A vampire's capacity can never be reduced below one, even by the >> effects of Violet Tremain, Mind of a Child, or Purity of the Beast. >> [RTR 19990712] >> A vampire's capacity can never be less than zero. [LSJ 19990114] >> >> Do we really need to keep the 2nd one on the books? > > No. So it might as well get stricken from the page then, so as not to confuse the newer players. Thanks James, Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes > >> Inner Circle members cannot be targeted by the Blood Hunt action > >> card. [RTR 19960124] > >> > >> Why the special dispensation for IC Members? This is the only card > >> that IC Members were added in addition to Prince & Justicar. > > > > True. I care very little either way whether it stays or goes, from a > > total amount of errata/rulings point of view, however. > > I suppose. It just struck me as being an unneeded addition to the card. > I understand the reasoning, but that same reasoning can be applied to > all the other P/J cards and it wasn't. No. Traditions are the resposibility of the Princes/Justicars to enforce - not the Inner Circle members. The reasoning was applied to the card it was appropriate for. > >> A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of > >> a certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah > >> he bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 19960530] > > So? If my prey brings out a Brujah and I control Ranjan Rishi, he > should get the +1 bleed regardless of who he bleeds. Conversely, If I Except that the designers intended him to get the bonus when bleeding a controller of a Brujah. When writing the card, however, they fell into the trap of thinking that a minion would only ever be bleeding his prey. > have Vasilis out, Giovanni should only be able to get the bonus against > players with Brujah. That is the current state of affairs, yes. > Also how does this ruling affect Suhailah? If does not, since Suhailah doesn't have a "bleed bonus if your prey controls a certain clan", which is what the ruling is a ruling on. > Does her stealth bonus also > apply to any methuselah controlling a Prince or Justicar? If > consistency is important, this does set such a precedent. It strikes me > that this opens more loopholes than it closes. As Suhailah gets a stealth bonus on all her actions (directed or not) based on the existence of a ready P/J controlled by her prey, the ruling you cite offers no precedent, and no loopholes. > >> If the Methuselah loses control of the acting minion before the > >> action is successful, then the action ends. [RTR 19970630] > >> > >> What kind of corner case caused this? I can't think of a > >> circumstance that would produce this effect other than blocking and > >> burning a vampire and that's handled normally. > > > > Erm, I recall one of the Serpentis ones doing it, but can't find > > any that would now. :( > > I don't believe it was ever ruled that you could burn Corruption > counters to take a vampire except when you successfully completed a > Corruption card action. It just sttrikes me as being confusing to new > players to have extra rulings on the book when they can never be > invoked. It shouldn't be confusing. It should be reassuringly complete. (Reassuing in that you can feel better that if some corner case does arise, a new off-the-cuff ruling won't be needed. That should appeal to some players, eh Noal :-) And this one can be invoked, as describe earlier: use Infernal Familiar. > >> Damage done to an uncontrolled vampire is ignored. [RTR 19991001] > >> > >> I didn't see what this referred to in the quoted rulings set. > >> Either way, how would this occur so that such a ruling is necessary? > > > > Banish yourself, with a Daring the Dawn. > > *nods* Good call. Didn't think of that. I still didn't see the ruling > that it referred to, though. It's in there. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8dkppg$v30$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: [snip] > >> Cards and abilities that are usable only after a successful action > >> are used after the action is completed, including any oustings. > >> [RTR 19970630] > >> > >> Isn't this a redundant ruling? > > > > No. What happens if I oust myself playing an Unnatural Disaster? > > Does the location burn? The ruling is needed to clear that up. > > Number one, Unnatural Disaster is not an action. Number two, I can't > think of a way to oust myself with it. *shrug* I believe this is defined as a master phase action, if you only had 2 pool left it most assuredly would oust you. > It looks like it was designed to handle a situation like ousting > yourself with a KRC vote and an attempt to follow up with Voter Cap. > Obviously you get ousted as the action resolves and never get to use > the voter cap. I guess that this should be placed in > "Clarifications" and could possibly use better wording. This could be one possible way. Joe Churchill V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter www.warghoul.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38FDF0D6...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: > > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > >Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes > > >> Inner Circle members cannot be targeted by the Blood Hunt action > > >> card. [RTR 19960124] > > >> > > >> Why the special dispensation for IC Members? This is the only card > > >> that IC Members were added in addition to Prince & Justicar. > > > > > > True. I care very little either way whether it stays or goes, from a > > > total amount of errata/rulings point of view, however. > > > > I suppose. It just struck me as being an unneeded addition to the card. > > I understand the reasoning, but that same reasoning can be applied to > > all the other P/J cards and it wasn't. > > No. Traditions are the resposibility of the Princes/Justicars to > enforce - not the Inner Circle members. The reasoning was applied to > the card it was appropriate for. > This justification has always bothered me: if the Inner Circle members do not concern themselves with enforcing the traditions, as though such affairs were beneath them, then explain the DS card Tradition Upheld...under that justification, why would an Inner Circle member ever lift a finger over a lowly Caitiff, regardless of what tradition he violated?? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 speaker_fo...@my-deja.com wrote: > This justification has always bothered me: The best thing to do with justifications is treat them as memory aids solely. There isn't always a real world explanation. Simplest reason: People oppose changing cards needlessly when they are functioning fine. That Arika cannot play a Fifth Tradtion: Horse Brutality is not having a negative impact on either card. Indeed, the current Rules Team has expressed a preference for not beefing up cards anyway (i.e. making wall-paper useful) but merely for toning down when needed, and fixing problems that occur. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "But I don't have the right to be with you tonight, so please leave me alone with no saviour in sight. I will sleep safe and sound with nobody around me."