[LSJ] About Magdelena Schaefer

The official errata list claims [LSJ 20030223] that Magdelena burns blood when a tha strike is "used" (the original wording). On the official card list, however, Magdelena reads: "If Magdelena [plays a strike card] that requires Thaumaturgy, she burns an additional blood." These are obviously contradictory. Assuming that the errata is correct, if Magdelena "uses" Theft of Vitae, does she burn the blood before or after Theft gives blood? The errata wording "when used" or "when resolves" is unclear, IMHO. Thanks. -- Juho Linna / The universe is a big place. V:EKN Prince of Tampere / Perhaps the biggest.

We've had a question somewhat like this in our group regarding Seeds of Corruption. Is the blood burned before, or after the action has resolved? The way I play it, which I'm quite positive is correct, the when the action is announced, the vampire spends the blood. In Magdelena's case, it would be handled similarly. In your example below, you say they are contradictory, which I disagree with. Playing a card and using a card are the same thing. Only action cards are payed for on resolution of a successfull action. Action modifiers, reaction cards, and combat cards are all payed for when played. A strike is both used, and played in the same instance, at least in my mind. I think if it was meant to be payed for when the strike resolves, it would say so. Dr. Fish [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Aug 2003 21:56:45 -0700, wordg...@hotmail.com (Dr. Fish) scrawled: >We've had a question somewhat like this in our group regarding Seeds >of Corruption. Is the blood burned before, or after the action has >resolved? > >The way I play it, which I'm quite positive is correct, the when the >action is announced, the vampire spends the blood. Latest card text is pretty handy for clarifying things like this. You are right in your playing of it: "[tha] (D) Put this card on one of your prey's vampires. If the vampire is a Follower of Set, he or she burns 2 additional blood for each action he or she attempts; otherwise, he or she burns 1 additional blood for each action he or she attempts. The vampire with this card cannot use his or her special abilities. Any vampire(s) may burn this card with two +1 stealth actions." Note it's just a 'burn blood' effect, so the vampire doesn;t have to have the blood to burn to be able to attempt the action. However, if the action costs blood, and the vampire doesn't have the blood anymore when time comes to pay (due to the Seeds or whatever), then the action will fail. >In Magdelena's case, it would be handled similarly. In your example >below, you say they are contradictory, which I disagree with. Playing >a card and using a card are the same thing. Only action cards are >payed for on resolution of a successfull action. Action modifiers, >reaction cards, and combat cards are all payed for when played. A >strike is both used, and played in the same instance, at least in my >mind. I think if it was meant to be payed for when the strike >resolves, it would say so. There was an issue with Magdelana and Wind Dance. Did she burn one blood when she played it, at superior, or did she burn one blood each time she used a strike (as Wind Dance, at superior, give you two strikes from one card)? It was ruled by LSJ that she burned a blood each time she _used_ a strike, thus she'd burn 2 blood overall playing a superior Wind Dance (one each time she used a strike). But, as the origional poster pointed out, that ruling _seems_ to have been made based on her origional text, which said when she uses a strike, she burns an additional blood. Her current, errata'd, text, says "If Magdelena [plays a strike card] that requires Thaumaturgy, she burns an additional blood", which would, ignoring LSJ's previous Wind Dance ruling, imply she only burns 1 blood to play, and use the strikes of, a superior Wind Dance. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Juho Linna wrote: > The official errata list claims [LSJ 20030223] that Magdelena > burns blood when a tha strike is "used" (the original wording). > > On the official card list, however, Magdelena reads: > "If Magdelena [plays a strike card] that requires Thaumaturgy, > she burns an additional blood." > > These are obviously contradictory. > > Assuming that the errata is correct, if Magdelena "uses" Theft > of Vitae, does she burn the blood before or after Theft gives > blood? > The errata wording "when used" or "when resolves" is unclear, > IMHO. The errata is not correct. The card text in the card list is correct. I'll fix the errata list ASAP. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Juho Linna wrote: >> The official errata list claims [LSJ 20030223] that Magdelena >> burns blood when a tha strike is "used" (the original wording). >> >> On the official card list, however, Magdelena reads: >> "If Magdelena [plays a strike card] that requires Thaumaturgy, >> she burns an additional blood." >> >> These are obviously contradictory. >> >> Assuming that the errata is correct, if Magdelena "uses" Theft >> of Vitae, does she burn the blood before or after Theft gives >> blood? >> The errata wording "when used" or "when resolves" is unclear, >> IMHO. > The errata is not correct. The card text in the card list is correct. > I'll fix the errata list ASAP. If the card text is correct ("plays a strike card that requires Thaumaturgy"), then does that reverse your previous ruling that she would burn 2 blood for Wind Dance at Superior [assuming both dodges triggered]?

In message <g0frjv8mo31h44pnp...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >Note it's just a 'burn blood' effect, so the vampire doesn;t have to >have the blood to burn to be able to attempt the action. However, if >the action costs blood, and the vampire doesn't have the blood anymore >when time comes to pay (due to the Seeds or whatever), then the action >will fail. But you pay as much of the cost as you can. http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR71101.htm * If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost is paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much of the cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action "fizzles" (resolves with no effect). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:13:44 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >In message <g0frjv8mo31h44pnp...@4ax.com>, salem ><salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >>Note it's just a 'burn blood' effect, so the vampire doesn;t have to >>have the blood to burn to be able to attempt the action. However, if >>the action costs blood, and the vampire doesn't have the blood anymore >>when time comes to pay (due to the Seeds or whatever), then the action >>will fail. > >But you pay as much of the cost as you can. > > http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR71101.htm > > * If, between the time you announce an action and the time the cost is > paid, you are no longer able to pay the cost, then you pay as much of the > cost as you can and, since the full cost is not paid, the action "fizzles" > (resolves with no effect). yup. a player here the other night got bitten in the arse by that rule when he tried to rescue one of his vamps from torpor, and the rescuer only had 2 blood (and the torpored guy had 0). he had to pay 1 blood to get some protean stealth, and then he got through, but burned his other blood and still failed to get the vamp out of torpor because of that rule. It was funny. [ quoted text not captured ]