> Can Wolf Claws, Claws of the Dead, Bone Spur and
> similar cards be used with melee weapons? Why or
> why not?
Short answer: "no".
You can play Claws when you possess a weapon whether or not
you strike with the weapon. The claws will modify hand damage
you inflict, making the hand damage damage aggravated. Hand
damage, in the sense that the Claws use the term, refers to
damage done by a hand strike.
So, if you strike with your hands (not using the melee weapon),
the damage will be made aggravated by the Claws.
If you strike with the melee weapon (doing weapon damage, not
hand damage), the damage done will be unaffected by Claws.
> Allies:
> Ignore all "burn blood" effects entirely. :A01: [TOM 960326]
>
> This seems a bit ludicrous. There are several allies in the
> A.H. and Sabbat sets that can burn life instead of blood
> for cards.
And that has nothing to do with ignoring burn blood effects.
Such allies will still ignore effects which attempt to make
them burn blood. They simply have the ability to burn life to
pay the cost of cards that normally require blood to play.
> This particular ruling should be either overturned and
> modified to say that allies burn life instead of blood.
The ruling works suitably as it is.
> Retainers:
> Any reference to the employing vampire should be a reference to
> the employing minion, unless the retainer's ability clearly only
> applies to a vampire. [RTR 960530]
>
> I'm not sure why this ruling was made. Does this mean that
> an ally can employ and use Tasha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.?
> If not, which cards does this effect?
Good question - I was never very comfortable with this ruling
anyhow - but haven't paid it much attention recently. Perhaps
it's time for a little RT review of this one. I'll put it on
the list.
> Also, I noticed that there is no mention of minions being
> able to trade retainers (without Heidelburg)...just equipment.
Right.
> Revenant which requires a Tzmisce states that "The minion
> with this retainer gets +1 intercept." How is an ally able to
> get this without Heidelburg?
Allies cannot get it via Heidelburg, since the Castle merely allows
trades between "ready vampires".
Revenant is just one of many examples where the card text writers
make a questionable choice of "minion" vs. "vampire". In the case
of Revenant, however, no harm is done.
> Perhaps we should consider
> be able to transfer retainers as well as equipment.
I don't know why. Such a change doesn't fix any imbalance nor does
it match the original design of the game. And some players are
ostensibly against change of any kind.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
SNIP of some questions and answers
>> Retainers:
>> Any reference to the employing vampire should be a reference to
>> the employing minion, unless the retainer's ability clearly only
>> applies to a vampire. [RTR 960530]
>>
>> I'm not sure why this ruling was made. Does this mean that
>> an ally can employ and use Tasha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.?
>> If not, which cards does this effect?>
>Good question - I was never very comfortable with this ruling
>anyhow - but haven't paid it much attention recently. Perhaps
>it's time for a little RT review of this one. I'll put it on
>the list.
I would just like to kick in my two cents. Is there any logical reason that
an Ally couldn't have a retainer? If the retainer does not require blood
from a vampire or have a discipline requirement why couldn't an Ally employ
a retainer. I see nothing wrong with this ruling. The RT can review it if
they like but I don't feel they should change it. The ruling is necessary
for allies to benefit from most retainers (now that I check V:TES text a bit
closer, I have mostly Jyhad cards).
I suppose if you let allies have retainers it detracts from the Vampire
aspect of the game but it has no basis in "reality". An out cast mage could
just as easily employ Mr. Winthrop as a vampire. Even a ghoul could be
created by a vampire and told to work for an ally (especially since the
ghoul retainers are paid for by the Methuselah's pool)
I just wanted to keep things logical and not limit options. This thread has
given my a "push mortal pawns around" deck idea using allies with retainers.
Will it be effective? I kinda doubt it (slow and fragile, though a renegade
Garou with Tasha Morgan and Mr. Winthrop does scare me a bit) With out
this ruling retainers lose a bit of usefulness and so do allies. Remember
that in the WOD Mages, Garou and other "allies" are powerful forces in their
own ways.
(which brings me to the point that this game is based on the WOD, but that
is a different thread...)
Thanks for listening (now lets have some other posts)
McEwen the Mad
McEwen the Mad wrote:
>
> SNIP of some questions and answers
>
> >> Retainers:
> >> Any reference to the employing vampire should be a reference to
> >> the employing minion, unless the retainer's ability clearly only
> >> applies to a vampire. [RTR 960530]
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why this ruling was made. Does this mean that
> >> an ally can employ and use Tasha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.?
> >> If not, which cards does this effect?
> >
> >Good question - I was never very comfortable with this ruling
> >anyhow - but haven't paid it much attention recently. Perhaps
> >it's time for a little RT review of this one. I'll put it on
> >the list.
>
> I would just like to kick in my two cents. Is there any logical reason that
> an Ally couldn't have a retainer? If the retainer does not require blood
> from a vampire or have a discipline requirement why couldn't an Ally employ
> a retainer. I see nothing wrong with this ruling. The RT can review it if
> they like but I don't feel they should change it. The ruling is necessary
> for allies to benefit from most retainers (now that I check V:TES text a bit
> closer, I have mostly Jyhad cards).
The problem with the ruling is not that Allies shouldn't be able to
have retainers - it's that card text should be followed. If the
retainer refers to the "vampire" employing him, then it is unclear
how that should apply to an ally. Just as an ally can be equipped
with a Vial of Garou blood but cannot make use of it (since card
text specifies a "vampire").
The "unless the ... ability clearly only applies to a vampire" is
the problem. Each retainer should be played as printed, unless there's
a reason not to (like intent, which is certainly arguable). If the
intent is to have allies benefit from the retainer, then the retainer
should have that errata/correction issued directly - not half-covered
by some blanket rule that would be problematic to enforce (since
different players may have different views of what "clearly" applies
to only vampires).
> I just wanted to keep things logical and not limit options.
Card text, in some cases, is designed to limit options. See Vial
of Garou Blood. This is logical. If a retainer has card text that
limits options (to vampires only), then following that card text
could be considered logical.
Statements about "ignore card text when come subjective condition
clearly applies" are problematic. Card-specific errata/corrections
should be issued to the cases that warrant it, to limit the
problems caused by the subjective aspect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> The "unless the ... ability clearly only applies to a vampire" is
> the problem. Each retainer should be played as printed, unless there's
> a reason not to (like intent, which is certainly arguable). If the
> intent is to have allies benefit from the retainer, then the retainer
> should have that errata/correction issued directly - not half-covered
> by some blanket rule that would be problematic to enforce (since
> different players may have different views of what "clearly" applies
> to only vampires).
My allies deck (prev. posted) is what inspired my question in the first place
since the Jyhad printings of the following cards did not specify that the
minion using the retainer had to be a vampire: Ghoul Retainer, J. S.
Simmons, Esq., Mr. Wintrop and Tasha Morgan (version A)
There are only a couple instances where I can see that an ally might
be able to use a retainer:
Akhenaten or Kherebutu playing Death Pact.
Talaq the Immortal playing Infernal Familiar (although card text stretches
credibility).
These may be the execptions since the allies' card texts allow them to play
cards as a vampire with that discipline. In the case of Talaq, I would have a
difficult time determining his capacity for the purpose of the Familiar since
there is no limit to the amount of life he can gain from Theft of Vitae.
If allies were printed that could use Animalism, we would have a real headache
as many of Animalism's retainers state "minion" rather than "vampire". Not to
mention the difficulty of ruling on Shepherd's Innocence.
Noal
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dhar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > The "unless the ... ability clearly only applies to a vampire" is
> > the problem. Each retainer should be played as printed, unless there's
> > a reason not to (like intent, which is certainly arguable). If the
> > intent is to have allies benefit from the retainer, then the retainer
> > should have that errata/correction issued directly - not half-covered
> > by some blanket rule that would be problematic to enforce (since
> > different players may have different views of what "clearly" applies
> > to only vampires).
>
> My allies deck (prev. posted) is what inspired my question in the first place
> since the Jyhad printings of the following cards did not specify that the
> minion using the retainer had to be a vampire: Ghoul Retainer, J. S.
> Simmons, Esq., Mr. Wintrop and Tasha Morgan (version A)
>
> There are only a couple instances where I can see that an ally might
> be able to use a retainer:
>
> Akhenaten or Kherebutu playing Death Pact.
I don't understand the difference you see in this case vs. the general case.
Death Pact specifies "vampire ... may change one damage from ...", which is
no different than most retainers.
> Talaq the Immortal playing Infernal Familiar (although card text stretches
> credibility).
Even worse here, since the ability is more certainly "clearly" only
applicable to vampires.
> These may be the execptions since the allies' card texts allow them to play
> cards as a vampire with that discipline. In the case of Talaq, I would have a
> difficult time determining his capacity for the purpose of the Familiar since
> there is no limit to the amount of life he can gain from Theft of Vitae.
Ah. The card is "played" as if the ally is a vampire, but once in play, the
card treats the ally as an ally (as normal).
> If allies were printed that could use Animalism, we would have a real headache
> as many of Animalism's retainers state "minion" rather than "vampire". Not to
> mention the difficulty of ruling on Shepherd's Innocence.
Yeah - And Jackal's card text even switches from "this minion" to "this
vampire" in the superior.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have reviewed my arguments and the cards in question again. I must admit
that I have had a change of mind. I wish that Allies could take advantage
of retainer cards that don't require disciplines or blood or clan because it
makes sense that someone could "employ" a retainer. And based on the Jyhad
versions of a few cards (Ghoul Retainer, Tasha Morgan (one version), and J.
S. Simmons Esq) they could. However, I now must say that based on -card
text- allies should not be able to benefit from retainers that (almost all)
say vampire. Since I am one of the people who is in favor of returning to a
fewer rulings and card text changes, I now find myself opposed to the ruling
that:
Retainers:
Any reference to the employing vampire should be a reference to
the employing minion, unless the retainer's ability clearly only
applies to a vampire. [RTR 960530]
So, I guess I have reversed positions and agree that the RT should review
this issue and probably reverse it, if only for the fact that it reduces
errata and rulings.
Overall I feel that we should play the cards as written with as little
errata as possible. Therefore since most retainers say vampire only
vampires can benefit from them. Oh, well, to bad the developers didn't use
the term minion.
McEwen the Mad
LSJ wrote in message <361CA6...@wizards.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]>The "unless the ... ability clearly only applies to a vampire" is
>the problem. Each retainer should be played as printed, unless there's
>a reason not to (like intent, which is certainly arguable). If the
>intent is to have allies benefit from the retainer, then the retainer
>should have that errata/correction issued directly - not half-covered
>by some blanket rule that would be problematic to enforce (since
>different players may have different views of what "clearly" applies
>to only vampires).
>>> I just wanted to keep things logical and not limit options.>
>Card text, in some cases, is designed to limit options. See Vial
>of Garou Blood. This is logical. If a retainer has card text that
>limits options (to vampires only), then following that card text
>could be considered logical.
>
>Statements about "ignore card text when come subjective condition
>clearly applies" are problematic. Card-specific errata/corrections
>should be issued to the cases that warrant it, to limit the
>problems caused by the subjective aspect.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
> Overall I feel that we should play the cards as written with as little
> errata as possible. Therefore since most retainers say vampire only
> vampires can benefit from them. Oh, well, to bad the developers didn't use
> the term minion.
The biggest problem is that while the rules technically allow allies to employ
retainers, the only retainers that use the word "minion" require a clan or a
discipline that no ally has to put in to play.
This is why I was trying to find a way of transferring retainers to
allies...and there doesn't seem to be one.
Noal McDonald
(insert silly title here) of Westland, MI
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
: The biggest problem is that while the rules technically allow allies to employ: retainers, the only retainers that use the word "minion" require a clan or a
: discipline that no ally has to put in to play.
Ghoul Retainer is still employable and (partially) usable under V:tES text
by allies. Other retainers are employable without being usable.
: This is why I was trying to find a way of transferring retainers to: allies...and there doesn't seem to be one.
I'm sure LSJ will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "Succubus Club"
would work. You could offer another Methuselah 1 pool for the right to
transfer retainer cards to him and back. Once you get them back, I would
guess you could place them on any minion you chose.
This way, your Hell Hound could get a Wolf Companion (not to mention a
sport bike, IR goggles, and anything else). It would be best if the Wolf
Companion were the Sabbat version, which says "minion", not "vampire".
Let me know, LSJ. Please say yes! I've always wanted to make a Malkavian
Scooby-Doo deck!
--
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
John Whelan wrote:
> [how to transfer retainers to allies]>
> I'm sure LSJ will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "Succubus Club"
> would work. You could offer another Methuselah 1 pool for the right to
> transfer retainer cards to him and back. Once you get them back, I would
> guess you could place them on any minion you chose.
>
> This way, your Hell Hound could get a Wolf Companion (not to mention a
> sport bike, IR goggles, and anything else). It would be best if the Wolf
> Companion were the Sabbat version, which says "minion", not "vampire".
>
> Let me know, LSJ. Please say yes! I've always wanted to make a Malkavian
> Scooby-Doo deck!
Yes. This would also work for equipment cards (which is also
nice for the Hell Hound, who can't take the transfer equipment
action).
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > I'm sure LSJ will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "Succubus Club"
> > would work. You could offer another Methuselah 1 pool for the right to
> > transfer retainer cards to him and back. Once you get them back, I would
> > guess you could place them on any minion you chose.
*laughs* That's good, John. I didn't even think of that.
LSJ confirms it's legal....but can you imagine the pleading
and politicking you'd have to do to get that to happen?
Yikes. Someone might do it out of humor value...but unlikely
after your deck gets rolling.
> > Let me know, LSJ. Please say yes! I've always wanted to
> > make a Malkavian Scooby-Doo deck!
Heh. Better pack some Scooby Snacks. *grin*
Noal McDonald
Mystery Bus Driver of Westland, MI
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, LSJ wrote:
> > Retainers:
> > Any reference to the employing vampire should be a reference to
> > the employing minion, unless the retainer's ability clearly only
> > applies to a vampire. [RTR 960530]
> >
> > I'm not sure why this ruling was made. Does this mean that
> > an ally can employ and use Tasha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.?
> > If not, which cards does this effect?
>
> Good question - I was never very comfortable with this ruling
> anyhow - but haven't paid it much attention recently. Perhaps
> it's time for a little RT review of this one. I'll put it on
> the list.
I was a bit intrigued by this thread, so I compared the text of the
various retainers. I was really taken aback by how messed-up the
situation is. Those V:tES guys really confused things with their
rewordings and clarifications.
There are really two separate issues: what minions can bring the retainer
into play, and what minions can benefit from the retainer once in play.
Here's a breakdown of the Jyhad vs. V:tES versions of the retainers,
designating minion requirements for playing the retainer card, as well as
those for using the card once in play. I have interpreted the text "All
Kindred", on the Jyhad versions, as a "vampire only" requirment for
playing the card. Please also notice that I have drawn a distinction
whenever text refers to "Employing Vampire" as opposed to "Controlling
Vampire" or simply "Vampire", as such distinctions seem relevant to a
current ruling (as well as possibly being relevant in and of themselves).
-------JYHAD-------- ------V:tES-------
PLAY USE PLAY USE
CharnasDaImp Tremere - Tremere -
GhoulEscort Kindred Vampire - Employing Vamp
GhoulRetainr - - - - (*)
Homonculus Protean Vampire Protean VampWithCard
JS.Simmons - - - VampWithRetainr
JackieThermn Kindred - - VampWithRetainr
MrWinthrop - - - VampWithRetainr
MurderOCrows Animalism - Animalism -
OwlCompanion Animalism - Animalism VampWithRetainr
RavenSpy Animalism - Animalism VampWithRetainr
RsplndtPrtct Toreador EmployingVamp Toreador EmployingVamp
TashaMorganA - - - VampWithRetainr
TashaMorganB Kindred - NA NA
WolfCmpanion Animalism - Animalism VampWithRetainr
(*) Weapon use by Ghoul Retainer is restricted to "Controlling
Vampire", but it is usable on any minion for the default 1 damage during
strike resolution.
This is rather amazing. Despite the fact that there was (I
presume) no intent to functionally change *any* of the 13 Jyhad retainers,
all but 3 seem to have been functionally altered in some way...and this is
not a single mistake, but 3 separate types of functional alterations. If
Noel needs a good example of the carelessness of the V:tES rewordings,
heres a good one.
Type 1: Cards that required a vampire to play the card (employ
the retainer) had this requirment dropped. Thus, Jackie Therman and Ghoul
Escort can now be played (but not used) by any ally.
Type 2: Cards that did not require a vampire to benefit from the
card, now have this requirement added to the text. These include
J.S.Simmons, Jackie Therman, Mr.Winthrop, Owl Companion, Raven Spy, Tasha
Morgan, Resplendent Protector, and Wolf Companion. A special case is
Ghoul Retainer, who is now limited but still partially usably when on an
Ally. This is especially relevant for retainers that can be employed by
Allies, like JS.Simmons, Mr.Winthrop, Tasha Morgan, and Ghoul Retainer.
For cards only playable by Vampires, it is still relevant, as they can be
transfered to Allies by means of the Succubus Club. The apparent intent
here was to clarify that these abilities only applied to the minion with
the card as opposed to other minions, but the word "vampire" was
inadvertently used instead of "minion".
Type 3: Two of the new V:tES cards (Ghoul Escort and Resplendent
Protector) use the word "employing vampire" or "employing minion", when
what they really mean (evidently) is "controlling minion" or "minion with
this card". LSJ, please correct me if I am wrong, but I am reasonably
sure the former phrase does *not* mean the same thing as the latter two.
The most obvious example is Charnas. His employer or employing minion is
the minion who brought him into play; his controller is the minion he is
placed on. The same distinction would apply to any minion who gained a
retainer by means other than an "Employ Retainer" action (or other
action/effect using the word "employ"). Succubus Club, Heidelberg Castle,
Far Mastery, Shepherd's Innocence, Compel the Spirit, Darius Styx's
ability, Ambrosius' special ability, Death Pact, and Lure of the Serpent
are all means you can gain a retainer without employing it. To be fair,
the Jyhad version of Resplendent Protector makes the same error. If taken
literally, this wording means that, for instance, if another vampire were
to steal a Resplendent Protector or Ghoul Escort through Far Mastery, it
would still be the original (employing) minion who was allowed to use him.
As a result of the above changes, there are now 2 functionally
different versions of most Jyhad/V:tES cards. For Tasha Morgan, there are
three versions. One could apply the rule that V:tES wording takes
precedence. One hitch, however, is that the Sabbat text of Wolf Companion
is consistent with the Jyhad rather than the V:tES version.
In what may have been an attempt to partially clear up the above
mess, the following ruling was issued:
Any reference to the employing vampire should be a reference to
the employing minion, unless the retainer's ability clearly only
applies to a vampire. [RTR 960530]
I'm not sure what the intent of this ruling was, but it technically
applies only to one card: Ghoul Escort. As a result, Ghoul Escort can
now be used on any ally who employs him (provided of course that you
ignore the Jyhad versions restriction that only "Kindred" can employ him).
I am aware of no other cards that use the "employing vampire" terminology
except Resplendent Protector, which is not effected because the "employing
minion" is always a Toreador vampire anyway.
I suspect what they really meant was:
Any reference to a vampire who has a retainer should be taken as
referring to the minion who has that retainer, whether or not he
is a vampire, unless the retainer's ability only applies to a
vampire.
Perhaps we also need the following:
Retainer cards which refer to the employing minion actually refer
to the minion who has the retainer.
Hope this helps some. Or perhaps I should be shot for making trouble.
[ quoted text not captured ]