Hello, just a couple of questions for the rulemongers:
1. Is it mandatory to put 1 pool on Powerbase: Chicago if the controller
isn't taking the pool off of it?
2. Vamp A bleeds. Vamp B blocks and taps Elysium to end combat. Vamp A
plays Psyche. Question- Is it legal for Vamp B to use a wwef/forced
awakening and then an Obedience to end the new combat from Psyche? Is a
wwef/forced awakening needed in the first place?
Thanks in advance...
Alex
harm...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (ALEX HARMON) writes:
>Hello, just a couple of questions for the rulemongers:
>1. Is it mandatory to put 1 pool on Powerbase: Chicago if the controller
>isn't taking the pool off of it?
No. The general rule on master:locations is that they are optional.
>2. Vamp A bleeds. Vamp B blocks and taps Elysium to end combat. Vamp A
>plays Psyche. Question- Is it legal for Vamp B to use a wwef/forced
>awakening and then an Obedience to end the new combat from Psyche? Is a
>wwef/forced awakening needed in the first place?
Legal? yes.
Wakey needed? yes, unless vamp B was untapped already (from Cat's Guidance
or whatnot).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Freedom means choosing
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | your burden.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Hephzibah Menuhin
Algustas <arob...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>On 15 Jan 1997, L. Scott Johnson wrote:>> harm...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (ALEX HARMON) writes:
>> >2. Vamp A bleeds. Vamp B blocks and taps Elysium to end combat. Vamp A
>> >plays Psyche. Question- Is it legal for Vamp B to use a wwef/forced
>> >awakening and then an Obedience to end the new combat from Psyche? Is a
>> >wwef/forced awakening needed in the first place?
>>
>> Legal? yes.
>> Wakey needed? yes, unless vamp B was untapped already (from Cat's Guidance
>> or whatnot).
>>> What action is Vamp B reacting to? How does it get to play a
>reaction card at all, since there is no action, only combat caused by
>another combat.
> *****Note: I think Vamp B should be able to play Obidience /
>Wakeys, but I don't see how the rules allow for this.*****
If it's important, use the only answer available:
He's reacting to the same action he would have been reacting to
if he had played obedience during the first combat (the combat
resulting from the block). In this case, the bleed.
But, it isn't important.
Reaction cards in general can only be played when it is not your turn
and when another Methuselah's minion is the acting minion.
In this case, the acting minion played Psyche, and is still the
acting minion - even though the action was blocked some time
ago.
Likewise, since he is still the acting minion, Vamp A could play
a Form of Mist during the Psyche'd combat to continue the
original bleed.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi LSJ,
On 15 Jan 1997, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> harm...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (ALEX HARMON) writes:
>
> >2. Vamp A bleeds. Vamp B blocks and taps Elysium to end combat. Vamp A
> >plays Psyche. Question- Is it legal for Vamp B to use a wwef/forced
> >awakening and then an Obedience to end the new combat from Psyche? Is a
> >wwef/forced awakening needed in the first place?
>
> Legal? yes.
> Wakey needed? yes, unless vamp B was untapped already (from Cat's Guidance
> or whatnot).
>
What action is Vamp B reacting to? How does it get to play a
reaction card at all, since there is no action, only combat caused by
another combat.
*****Note: I think Vamp B should be able to play Obidience /
Wakeys, but I don't see how the rules allow for this.*****
Algustas
*****If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one
being made.***** Otto Von Bismark
On 15 Jan 1997 04:51:00 GMT, harm...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (ALEX
HARMON) wrote:
>Hello, just a couple of questions for the rulemongers:
>
>1. Is it mandatory to put 1 pool on Powerbase: Chicago if the controller
>isn't taking the pool off of it?
Well, yes, but if you don't want to put the pool on, you can always
"take off" the 0 pool that's on the powerbase, rendering the same
effect....
>2. Vamp A bleeds. Vamp B blocks and taps Elysium to end combat. Vamp A
>plays Psyche. Question- Is it legal for Vamp B to use a wwef/forced
>awakening and then an Obedience to end the new combat from Psyche? Is a
>wwef/forced awakening needed in the first place?
Yes, and Yes, if the vampire is not untapped.
Alec Chang
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>Algustas <arob...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:>>>>> What action is Vamp B reacting to? How does it get to play a
>>reaction card at all, since there is no action, only combat caused by
>>another combat.
>> *****Note: I think Vamp B should be able to play Obidience /
>>Wakeys, but I don't see how the rules allow for this.*****>If it's important, use the only answer available:>He's reacting to the same action he would have been reacting to
>if he had played obedience during the first combat (the combat
>resulting from the block). In this case, the bleed.
A better answer is one by example:
He's reacting to the same action that would have been modified
by a Hidden Lurker (whose timing class comes after the opportunity
to play superior Psyche) if Vamp A hadn't played Psyche.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> He's reacting to the same action that would have been modified
> by a Hidden Lurker (whose timing class comes after the opportunity
> to play superior Psyche) if Vamp A hadn't played Psyche.
Related question: Is the other minion still considered to be blocking?
For example, would Backstab be playable in the second combat?
James
--
James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be
somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"
Hi LSJ,
On 16 Jan 1997, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
> >Algustas <arob...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
> >>>
> >> What action is Vamp B reacting to? How does it get to play a
> >>reaction card at all, since there is no action, only combat caused by
> >>another combat.
> >> *****Note: I think Vamp B should be able to play Obidience /
> >>Wakeys, but I don't see how the rules allow for this.*****
>
> >If it's important, use the only answer available:
>
> >He's reacting to the same action he would have been reacting to
> >if he had played obedience during the first combat (the combat
> >resulting from the block). In this case, the bleed.
>
> A better answer is one by example:
>> He's reacting to the same action that would have been modified
> by a Hidden Lurker (whose timing class comes after the opportunity
> to play superior Psyche) if Vamp A hadn't played Psyche.
>
Hmm, so then a vampire using hidden lurker could play superior
Form of Mist as his strike and take over the previous action of another
minion? Say the action required a discipline the "new" acting vampire
didn't have, would it fizzle or work the way that the painfull Mask of
1000 Faces ruling works?
Algustas
*****Whoever can suprize well must conquer.***** John Paul Jones
James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes:
>> He's reacting to the same action that would have been modified
>> by a Hidden Lurker (whose timing class comes after the opportunity
>> to play superior Psyche) if Vamp A hadn't played Psyche.>Related question: Is the other minion still considered to be blocking?
Yes.
>For example, would Backstab be playable in the second combat?
Hurm. Maybe.
Allow me to address a similar but clearer example first:
Q: "Would Fast Reaction be playable after the second combat?"
A: Yes, because Vamp B is still the Blocking minion.
And, stretching for another example:
Q: "Could Vamp A play Kiss of Ra between combats?"
A: No, because Kiss of Ra can only be played when a vampire attempts
to block, and the attempt has passed.
---
Back to Backstab
The wording on backstab isn't precise:
Backstab Combat Celerity 2 blood
Normal: Only usable by a vampire who successfully blocks an action. This
vampire gains First Strike for his/her first strike in the combat.
Superior: As above, with additional strike.
It mentions a restriction that it is only usable by a vampire who
successfully blocks an action.
While we can see that it (obviously?) means "blocks the current action"
as opposed to "has ever blocked an action", the text is not clear.
Similarly, it (obviously?) means "First Strike for his first strike
in the combat caused by the block" or "First Strike for the first strike
following the block" [Notice the use of "the combat" - suggesting that
it only applies to the default combat which results from a block].
I'd go with the "intended meaning" in this case - if only because the
wording itself isn't clear enough to give an answer. (Normally, I'd
say follow the card text in absence of a ruling, like Soul Burn; but
that can only be done when the card text is clear).
So, unofficially, but as best as I can figure: "No".
If this type of ruling (ad-hoc application of intentions over card text)
doesn't suit your group, or the net as a whole, then feel free to read
Backstab as "First Strike for the first strike in /a/ combat" - and
carry on with a clear conscience.
With that, then (again unofficially): "Yes".
Or better yet (if you want the answer to be "yes"), replace the "who
successfully blocks an action" (a horrible template, by the way) with
a template borrowed from Sabbat:
Backstab Combat Celerity 2 blood
Normal: Only usable by the blocking vampire. This vampire gains First
Strike for his/her first strike of the combat.
Superior: As above, with additional strike.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Algustas <arob...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>>
>> He's reacting to the same action that would have been modified
>> by a Hidden Lurker (whose timing class comes after the opportunity
>> to play superior Psyche) if Vamp A hadn't played Psyche.
>>> Hmm, so then a vampire using hidden lurker could play superior
>Form of Mist as his strike and take over the previous action of another
No. The Lurking vampire is not the acting vampire - he's just a modifying
vampire (which is why you couldn't have a third vampire play a
second Hidden Lurker to start combat - the second vampire is not an
acting vampire).
>minion? Say the action required a discipline the "new" acting vampire
>didn't have, would it fizzle or work the way that the painfull Mask of
>1000 Faces ruling works?
Moot, but in theory: "yes".
[ quoted text not captured ]