Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: 3) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, if a vampire takes aggravated damage
: from several sources at once, add up that damage when you determine whether
: the vampire is burned.: Example: Cassandra and Andreas are in combat, and each vampire has 4 blood.
: Cassandra strikes for 2 aggravated damage, and her Ghoul Retainer strikes
: for another 2 aggravated damage. Andreas takes 4 aggravated damage at once,
: which equals his blood capacity, so he is burned.
Pardon? The way I read the rules, Andreas would be in torpor with 0 blood.
1) Each point of agg. does a point of damage (therefore 4 points)
2) Agravated damage was done and not prevented (therefore torpor)
3) No aggravated damage was done _in excess_ of the vampire's blood,
therefore he is not burned.
One still needs X+1 (froom multiple sources now) rather than the old X+2
(from a single source), but the above example only had X points of
damage inflicted...
: 4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
: except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
: situations in Magic.: Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a
: Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control the
: Laptop, but not the Protean.
After reading the Duellists article, I was under the impression that the
controller of a vampire which had a Blood doll played on it could use the
Blood Doll. Did I mis-read the article or is there a contradiction here,
possibly overruled by (new) text on the Blood Doll itself?
: REVERSALS: 1) From our "What Were We Thinking??" Department
: Malkavian Dementia wears off at the start of your turn, before your untap
: phase. So the Malkavian is returned tapped, you may not yield it if it is
: contested, and so on.
Glad to hear this one... (and what _were_ you smok^H^H^H^Hthinking? :-)
Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>3) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, if a vampire takes aggravated damage
>from several sources at once, add up that damage when you determine whether
>the vampire is burned.>Example: Cassandra and Andreas are in combat, and each vampire has 4 blood.
>Cassandra strikes for 2 aggravated damage, and her Ghoul Retainer strikes
>for another 2 aggravated damage. Andreas takes 4 aggravated damage at once,
>which equals his blood capacity, so he is burned.>In Jyhad, aggravated "attacks" were always applied individually, so Andreas
>would not have been burned in this example.
Actually, Andreas shouldn't be burned here either. To quote the VTES
rules : "If the amount of aggravated damage the vampire takes exceeds
the number of blood counters she has, she is burned." 2 + 2 = 4, not
2 + 2 > 4.
>4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
>except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
>situations in Magic.>Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a
>Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control the
>Laptop, but not the Protean.>However, you are not allowed to ignore permanent effects "just because,"
>unless the card is an equipment card or otherwise notes that it can be
>disregarded. For example, while you continue to control Discipline cards on
>your vampires when they are stolen, you can't disregard their effects until
>you get the vampire back.
Ummmmm..... huh?
So... Ozmo has gotten really good at Protean, then another Meth
convinces him to turn sides. Suddenly he forgets all about what he
had learned? Yep... makes perfect sense... after all if I ever stop
working at TI, I expect to forget how to program.
>1) From our "What Were We Thinking??" Department
Would this be the department that also came up with the above ruling?
-CT
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
GENERAL RULINGS
1) If a minion becomes contested, that minion is considered out of play.
Any cards played on that minion are also considered out of play for all
purposes except contention. Any unique equipment, retainers, etc. on the
minion will be contested normally if other copies appear, even if other
copies are also on contested minions.
2) If a vampire's title is contested, that vampire can only keep the title
in contention if he or she is ready. Thus, a vampire who is in torpor
(and/or contested) will yield his or her title during the untap phase,
unless he or she returns to play during the untap phase, in which case the
vampire can contest the title normally.
3) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, if a vampire takes aggravated damage
from several sources at once, add up that damage when you determine whether
the vampire is burned.
Example: Cassandra and Andreas are in combat, and each vampire has 4 blood.
Cassandra strikes for 2 aggravated damage, and her Ghoul Retainer strikes
for another 2 aggravated damage. Andreas takes 4 aggravated damage at once,
which equals his blood capacity, so he is burned.
In Jyhad, aggravated "attacks" were always applied individually, so Andreas
would not have been burned in this example.
4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
situations in Magic.
Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a
Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control the
Laptop, but not the Protean.
However, you are not allowed to ignore permanent effects "just because,"
unless the card is an equipment card or otherwise notes that it can be
disregarded. For example, while you continue to control Discipline cards on
your vampires when they are stolen, you can't disregard their effects until
you get the vampire back.
REVERSALS
1) From our "What Were We Thinking??" Department
Malkavian Dementia wears off at the start of your turn, before your untap
phase. So the Malkavian is returned tapped, you may not yield it if it is
contested, and so on.
ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES
None!
(We saved the rules errata for the 'Net release of the V:TES rulebook...)
CARD RULINGS
1) You may continue an action that has already been considered successful.
For example, if a Bum's Rush is successful, you may play superior Form of
Mist during that combat to continue the action, in which case a second
combat may start (but the action can then be blocked). Note that if you
complete the action again, you get all of its effects again. For example,
if you complete Bum's Rush again, you would get an optional maneuver in the
second combat.
2) If a vampire has two copies of Kindred Society Games played on it, each
copy exerts its own effect on the vampire. Thus, untapping the vampire
normally would require the vampire to burn a total of 2 blood. If the
vampire does not untap normally, then both Games are moved to other
vampire(s), although the vampire could burn 1 blood to prevent one of the
Games from moving on.
3) If a player is saved more than once by Life Boon, the various Boons
reserve a series of victory points (and ante), rather than competing with
each other for a single victory point and ante.
Example: Nick, Jeanette, Lacroix, and others sit down to play a game of
V:TES. Nick saves Lacroix with a Life Boon. Later in the game, Lacroix is
saved with Life Boon again, this time by Jeanette. If Lacroix manages to
come back and oust two other players, Nick will get the first victory point
and ante that Lacroix would have won, and Jeanette will get the second.
4) If you play Vast Wealth on a vampire and that vampire is stolen, the
Vast Wealth is uncontrolled unless until you regain control of the vampire.
This is because you can still control the Vast Wealth (see General Ruling
#4, above), but can't act with another player's minion.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <45vfhr$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Tom Wylie writes:
>Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a
>Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control
the
>Laptop, but not the Protean.
Vampires gain capacity level and disciplines through either going up in
generation (drinking the blood of an older vampire, presumably the
controling Methuselah when skill cards are played) or through literal
aging (passing of time). I don't see how Ozmo who has Protean in his
blood (literally) could not use protean disciplines and what about the
extra blood capacity. If Ozmo had enough skill cards to make him an 11
capacity vampire and was at full blood when stolen, where does the blood
go?
>However, you are not allowed to ignore permanent effects "just because,"
>unless the card is an equipment card or otherwise notes that it can be
>disregarded. For example, while you continue to control Discipline cards
on
>your vampires when they are stolen, you can't disregard their effects
until
>you get the vampire back.
This is a little much for my Gangrel mind to handle. Does "you are not
allowed to ingnore permanent effects" include the permanent effect of a
discipline and blood capacity addition? It seems that it's answering my
above questions in the last sentence but I'm stuck on the "control issue".
The discipline is on Ozmo, Bob controls Ozmo, you steal Ozmo, Bob
controls the discipline card, you control Ozmo, but Bob "can't disregard
their (Discipline cards) effects until" he gets the vampire back. Does
that mean I can or can't play discipline cards? What is Ozmo's age and
capacity? Please clarify the above ruling so that De-Evolved Kindred like
my self can understand.
Charles T. Schwope <c-sc...@ti.com> wrote:
>>Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a
>>Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control the
>>Laptop, but not the Protean.>>However, you are not allowed to ignore permanent effects "just because,"
>>unless the card is an equipment card or otherwise notes that it can be
>>disregarded. For example, while you continue to control Discipline cards on
>>your vampires when they are stolen, you can't disregard their effects until
>>you get the vampire back.>Ummmmm..... huh?
>So... Ozmo has gotten really good at Protean, then another Meth
>convinces him to turn sides. Suddenly he forgets all about what he
>had learned? Yep... makes perfect sense... after all if I ever stop
>working at TI, I expect to forget how to program.
If you reread the ruling, you'll find that you read it backwards. The Protean
does not shut off just because you lose control of the vampire, because you
can't shut off continuous effects (like Disciplines) just because.
[ quoted text not captured ]
J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@io.com> wrote:
>>Example: Cassandra and Andreas are in combat, and each vampire has 4 blood.
>>Cassandra strikes for 2 aggravated damage, and her Ghoul Retainer strikes
>>for another 2 aggravated damage. Andreas takes 4 aggravated damage at once,
>>which equals his blood capacity, so he is burned.>Andreas would need to take 5 damage to be burned,
>since that is how much is needed to exceed his blood capacity.
>Equalling his blood capacity will only render him empty in torpor.
I really do need to properly adjust myself to the VTES rules for
aggravated damage. I keep being off by 1...
>>4) If you play Vast Wealth on a vampire and that vampire is stolen, the
>>Vast Wealth is uncontrolled unless until you regain control of the vampire.
>>This is because you can still control the Vast Wealth (see General Ruling
>>#4, above), but can't act with another player's minion.>Mildly contradictory. The Vast Wealth is unusable until (or unless) you>regain control of the vampire.
"uncontrolled" is definitely the wrong word. Not sure how that crept
in there. "inactive" is more like it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: 4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it>: except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
>: situations in Magic.>: Example: You take control of your opponent's Ozmo, who is equipped with a>: Laptop and has a Master Discipline card for Protean. You could control the
>: Laptop, but not the Protean.
>>After reading the Duellists article, I was under the impression that the
>controller of a vampire which had a Blood doll played on it could use the
>Blood Doll. Did I mis-read the article or is there a contradiction here,
>possibly overruled by (new) text on the Blood Doll itself?
Blood Doll breaks the rules, and allows the vampire's current controller
to make use of it.
>: 1) From our "What Were We Thinking??" Department>: Malkavian Dementia wears off at the start of your turn, before your untap
>: phase. So the Malkavian is returned tapped, you may not yield it if it is
>: contested, and so on.>Glad to hear this one... (and what _were_ you smok^H^H^H^Hthinking? :-)
It's that XTC-laced blood again ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Are political actions a directed or non-directed action?
If a political action is non-directed that means that if someone other
than my prey or preadator calls a political action that directly affects
me (loss of pool, threat counter, etc.) does that mean that the only way I
can block the action is with the aid of Eagle's Sight? Since most damage
inflicting political actions (like KRC) split their damage between 2
Methuselahs the chances of me getting attacked in this way are pretty
good. I can vote in political action but I can't stop it???
<matt...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>> 4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
>> except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
>> situations in Magic.><boggle> Why this ruling? What's wrong with controlling the master
>cards on a vamp that you take control of? This just seems like an
>unnecessary ruling to me...although I'm sure someone will point out the
>error of my thinking. ;)
Because laptops and chauffeurs and such are things the vampire went out and
got for him or herself. Master cards are things the Methuselah went out and
did to the vampire; if it's up to anyone whether the master card gets used,
it's up to the Mehtuselah who put it there.
Also, a couple of cards are broken if control of master cards changes, whereas
nothing really breaks under this ruling. For example, Minor Boon would prevent
the vampire it was on from bleeding the vampire's controller, not the player
who put the Boon on it.
>> 4) If you play Vast Wealth on a vampire and that vampire is stolen, the
>> Vast Wealth is uncontrolled unless until you regain control of the vampire.
>> This is because you can still control the Vast Wealth (see General Ruling
>> #4, above), but can't act with another player's minion.>Okay, after reading this, here's my question. My prey takes control of
>my Steph--I mean, Camille who is Famous (of course :).
>But I control the Fame, so who takes the blood loss if she goes into
>torpor, my prey, or my grand-prey?...
The 3 pool is burnt by the vampire's prey, not the Fame's prey (card text).
>Also, if someone else decides to
>have a famous vampire, who decides whether Camille will contest the Fame?
The person who played the Fame (i.e., you) still controls the Fame, so would
be the one to pay to contest it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
>>except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
>>situations in Magic.>So if I've Blood Dolled Uriah Winter, and he rolls on around the table (as
>he is prone to do), I can keep pulling blood off him?...
No, because the vampire's controller decides whether to use Blood Doll,
not the BD's controller (ruling/errata in Jyhad, card text in VTES).
>>4) If you play Vast Wealth on a vampire and that vampire is stolen, the
>>Vast Wealth is uncontrolled unless until you regain control of the>vampire...
>Technically, isn't it "controlled but useless"?
Yes. Miscommunication with the editor.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote:
>>However, you are not allowed to ignore permanent effects "just because,"
>>unless the card is an equipment card or otherwise notes that it can be
>>disregarded. For example, while you continue to control Discipline cards on
>>your vampires when they are stolen, you can't disregard their effects until
>>you get the vampire back.>This is a little much for my Gangrel mind to handle. Does "you are not
>allowed to ingnore permanent effects" include the permanent effect of a
>discipline and blood capacity addition?
Yes. If you give your vampire a Discipline, and that vampire defects,
you still control the Discipline card, but can't turn off its effects.
> The discipline is on Ozmo, Bob controls Ozmo, you steal Ozmo, Bob
>controls the discipline card, you control Ozmo, but Bob "can't disregard
>their (Discipline cards) effects until" he gets the vampire back. Does
>that mean I can or can't play discipline cards? What is Ozmo's age and>capacity?...
Ozmo would still have the increased capacity, and would still be able to
play cards of that discipline (and at superior, if appropriate).
The control would only be important if a "this card's controller burns 1 pool
during untap" card was played on the Discipline card; then you would burn
pool, not Ozmo's controller.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <462qel$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote:
>This is a little much for my Gangrel mind to handle. Does "you are not
>allowed to ingnore permanent effects" include the permanent effect of a
>discipline and blood capacity addition?
It's like Magic. If you put an Unholy Strength on your Juggernaut, and
somebody plays Control Magic on your Juggernaut, *you* are still the
controller of the Unholy Strength. However, just because you no longer
control the creature Unholy Strength enchants doesn't mean you can turn
it off.
--
---
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking atomsphere of
poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not much like Earth.
-- Calvin
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>4) If you play Vast Wealth on a vampire and that vampire is stolen, the>Vast Wealth is controlled but useless until you regain control of the vampire.>This is because you can still control the Vast Wealth (see General Ruling
>#4, above), but can't act with another player's minion.
But previously, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>Dale Hurtt <dhu...@ic1d.harris.com> wrote:>>[Re: Vast Wealth. -lsj]
>>Again, the Master card gives your vampire an extra ability. It is a matter
>>of interpretation of what that ability is. I say it is that you get the
>>ability to perform a search through the library....>
>This is the correct interpretation.
And the general ruling on Master Cards on stolen vampires is:
>4) If you gain control of a card, you get control of any cards played on it
>except for master cards. Note that this is very different from similar
>situations in Magic.
>>However, you are not allowed to ignore permanent effects "just because,"
>unless the card is an equipment card or otherwise notes that it can be
>disregarded. For example, while you continue to control Discipline cards on
>your vampires when they are stolen, you can't disregard their effects until
>you get the vampire back.
Seems to me that Vast Wealth is a permanent effect (granting an ability to
a vampire) that cannot be ignored "just because". Sure you can choose not
to take the action, but that doesn't mean the ability to undertake that
action has been removed. And since you aren't making the choice of what
action to take, the new controller would still have that option.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
In article <4759gm$6...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) writes:
>Seems to me that Vast Wealth is a permanent effect (granting an ability
to
>a vampire) that cannot be ignored "just because". Sure you can choose
not
>to take the action, but that doesn't mean the ability to undertake that
>action has been removed. And since you aren't making the choice of what
>action to take, the new controller would still have that option.
>--
If this was the case, which library would you search through the controler
of the minion or the controler of Vast Wealth?
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>3) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, if a vampire takes aggravated damage
>from several sources at once, add up that damage when you determine whether
>the vampire is burned.
>>Example: Cassandra and Andreas are in combat, and each vampire has 4 blood.
>Cassandra strikes for 2 aggravated damage, and her Ghoul Retainer strikes
>for another 2 aggravated damage. Andreas takes 4 aggravated damage at once,
>which equals his blood capacity, so he is burned.
>>In Jyhad, aggravated "attacks" were always applied individually, so Andreas
>would not have been burned in this example.
The example is not useful, neither to Jyhad nor to the full VtES game.
Even if the attacks were combined, Andreas would not have been burned in
Jyhad. As one lump packet (which it is not in Jyhad) it still would have
left him with one blood in torpor. So there is no clarification to be
discerned.
And Andreas would only be burned in the VtES basic game. He would be in
torpor with zero blood in the full game. So the example is misleading.
The sum total difference between Jyhad and VtES aggravated damage is that
the first point of each "packet" of aggravated damage in Jyhad does not
require the loss of a blood to prevent destruction, whereas every point,
including the first point, in every VtES packet of aggravated damage
requires the loss of a blood to prevent destruction.
There is no need for additional clarification/rulings/errata in VtES, since
it makes no difference whatsoever whether you combine all the packets into
one or apply them individually.
Andreas starts with 4 and takes 2 packets of 2agg each:
VtES: Andreas goes to torpor with zero blood.
Jyhad: Andreas goes to torpor with two blood.
Andreas starts with 3 and takes 2 packets of 2agg each:
VtES: Andreas is burned.
Jyhad: Andreas goes to torpor with one blood.
Andreas starts with 2 and takes 2 packets of 2agg each:
VtES: Andreas is burned.
Jyhad: Andreas goes to torpor with zero blood.
Andreas starts with 1 and takes 2 packets of 2agg each:
VtES: Andreas is burned.
Jyhad: Andreas is burned.
Andreas starts with X blood and takes N packets of 1agg each:
VtES: (X<N) Andreas is burned.
(X>=N) Andreas loses N blood and goes to torpor.
Jyhad: Andreas is placed in torpor with X blood.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Interpreting Vast Wealth as being usable by a stolen vampire is possible
under the Jyhad wording, but rather broken, given that the controller of
Vast Wealth won't change when the vampire is stolen. If it could use
the action, the equipment would be pulled from the library of the VW's
controller (not the vampire's controller), and it's ambiguous as to who's
supposed to pay the pool cost.
In any event, under the VTES wording (which I realize isn't public yet),
it's pretty clear that Vast Wealth is useless if you don't control the
vampire it's on. This doesn't particularly bother me, as it's easily
explained by the Methuselah freezing the vampire's bank accounts while
it's working for someone else.
[ quoted text not captured ]