Rule book error

Section 6.5.5 Last Sentence reads: After diablerie, a blood hunt may be called on the diablerist. Section 6.5.6 Second paragraph, first sentence reads: When a vampire commits diablerie, a referendum is automatically conducted to determine if a blood hunt will be clalled on the diablerist. So what is it, May or Must? With cool new cards like redline this is an important item. Raille

Raille wrote: > Section 6.5.5 > Last Sentence reads: > After diablerie, a blood hunt may be called on the diablerist. > > Section 6.5.6 > Second paragraph, first sentence reads: > When a vampire commits diablerie, a referendum is automatically > conducted to > determine if a blood hunt will be clalled on the diablerist. > > So what is it, May or Must? Blood Hunt to burn the diablerist: may [6.5.5] Referendum to see if the blood hunt will be called: must. [6.5.6] No conflict. The referendum to see if the blood hunt that might be called is in fact call is mandatory and automatically called. > With cool new cards like redline this is an important item. ? Even under the old rules (where the referendum was optional as well), I fail to see how this impacts Redline, which depends only on the referendum's passing (not merely on the referendum being conducted). -- 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/

Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > Section 6.5.5 > Last Sentence reads: > After diablerie, a blood hunt may be called on the diablerist. > Section 6.5.6 > Second paragraph, first sentence reads: > When a vampire commits diablerie, a referendum is automatically conducted to > determine if a blood hunt will be clalled on the diablerist. > So what is it, May or Must? I think that the "may" in the first sentence is not permission (like "can"), but is instead a synonym for "might". If Smudge commits diablerie, a blood hunt is called. If Muaziz commits diablerie, a blood hunt is not called. Therefore, a blood hunt "may" be called.

On Thu, 29 May 2003 05:37:04 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] 'might'. to explain: there is a referendum after every diablerie. it has to happen. if that referendum passes, a bloodhunt is called on the vampire, burning him. the 'bloodhunt is called' part isn't another referendum, it is just a thematic way of explaining why the vampire burns when the actual referendum passes. so, to verbosely expand upon section 6.5.5: After diablerie, a bloodhunt may be called on the diablerist {if the referendum, that must be called after a diablerie, passes}. does that help at all? salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

In message <3ED621D...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >The referendum to see if the blood hunt that might be called is >in fact call is mandatory and automatically called. There appears to be some slight sloppiness of wording in the question (I'm about to cite), but could you clarify how that works with regards: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D330EDA.54772FCD%40white-wolf.com There, the confusion seems to be in calling a Blood Hunt - so people automatically immune to them didn't appear to have the vote called in the first place. (The assumption in the question is that the *Blood Hunt* is automatically called - rather than the referendum to determine if one is called.) So, basically, if Muaziz commits diablerie, is a referendum still held, during which I or an opponent could toss a political action card? (Hand cycling, for instance.) Since Muaziz isn't a legal target for the Bloodhunt, it seems plausible that the referendum couldn't be called on her in the first place - just as you couldn't call a vote telling you to "Pick a ready Lasombra" if there were none in play. But on the other hand, the referendum could just be called automagically - I'm not sure if concerns about legal targeting, as would affect a player playing a card, will interfere with those rules. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >>The referendum to see if the blood hunt that might be called is >>in fact call is mandatory and automatically called. > > There appears to be some slight sloppiness of wording in the question > (I'm about to cite), but could you clarify how that works with regards: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D330EDA.54772FCD%40white-wolf.com Yes. The sloppiness has been noted before. I'll try to be keep the slop to a minimum in the future. :-) > There, the confusion seems to be in calling a Blood Hunt - so people > automatically immune to them didn't appear to have the vote called in the > first place. (The assumption in the question is that the *Blood Hunt* is > automatically called - rather than the referendum to determine if one is > called.) Yes. The referendum is frequently called the blood hunt. It should be clear by context if it is the referendum or the burning effect. > So, basically, if Muaziz commits diablerie, is a referendum still held, > during which I or an opponent could toss a political action card? (Hand > cycling, for instance.) No. > Since Muaziz isn't a legal target for the Bloodhunt, it seems plausible > that the referendum couldn't be called on her in the first place - just > as you couldn't call a vote telling you to "Pick a ready Lasombra" if > there were none in play. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message news:<3ED5D4C0...@mich.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Oddly enough, both sections are right... A referendum MUST be called (6.5.6), which MAY result in a blood hunt that burns the vampire (6.5.5). Then again, it MAY result in the referendum failing and no blood hunt occuring. Your confusion is that the 'blood hunt' is not the referendum itself, but the term used for the result of the successful referendum in this case. (When it was still an optional vote, a lot of players would colloquially refer to it as 'anyone want to call a blood hunt?' for 'anyone want to cast votes to burn the vampire via a blood hunt?'). Still, 6.5.5 could be better worded. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually the confusion seems (at least for me) to come from the reference to a blood hunt, prior to the rule establishing the order and effects for the referendum. So I agree that 6.5.5 could be better worded, or perhaps that last sentance at least moved into section 6.5.6 someplace. Thanks for LSJ and everyone else's comments. Raille

So after reading a few posts, I have questions on diablerie: 1) Someone AMARANTH my Dragos, I play REFORMED BODY. Does the diablerist get all the blood on Dragos or does Dragos gets to keep all the blood that was on him? Do I keep all the equipments/retainers on Dragos? 2) My March Halcyon (1 for) in combat with Theo Bell that had 6 blood on him b4 combat.. I play trap/undead persistence/molotov cocktail combo to burn him eventually.. if i play RITUAL OF THE BITTER ROSE, do all my vampires get 6 blood each or none since the last round Theo Bell had 0 blood? 3) If a vampire of mine is diablerized, bloodhunt is called, can my Jost Werner play TREACHERY? 4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nekked Dragos can play CRIMSON FURY if someone plays AMARANTH, but if he can't play CRIMSON FURY when someone takes a diablerie action on him in torpor, right? Thanx.

> 1) Someone AMARANTH my Dragos, I play REFORMED BODY. Does the > diablerist get all the blood on Dragos or does Dragos gets to keep all > the blood that was on him? Do I keep all the equipments/retainers on > Dragos? Don't know. I would guess diablerist gets it all as the diablerie must be successful before you are "being burned". > 2) My March Halcyon (1 for) in combat with Theo Bell that had 6 blood > on him b4 combat.. I play trap/undead persistence/molotov cocktail > combo to burn him eventually.. if i play RITUAL OF THE BITTER ROSE, do > all my vampires get 6 blood each or none since the last round Theo > Bell had 0 blood? None > 3) If a vampire of mine is diablerized, bloodhunt is called, can my > Jost Werner play TREACHERY? Nope. There is nothing to react to. > 4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nekked Dragos can play CRIMSON FURY > if someone plays AMARANTH, but if he can't play CRIMSON FURY when > someone takes a diablerie action on him in torpor, right? Wrong, He can play it either time: Name: Crimson Fury Cardtype: Reaction/Combat Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Animalism This card can be played as a reaction card or a combat card. Only usable when this vampire is being diablerized. *Usable by a tapped vampire.* *Usable by a vampire in torpor.* [ani] The diablerie is canceled and the diablerist burns 1 blood. [ANI] Burn both the diablerist and this vampire. (The diablerie is still considered successful.)

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:37:28 +0100, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: >> 1) Someone AMARANTH my Dragos, I play REFORMED BODY. Does the >> diablerist get all the blood on Dragos or does Dragos gets to keep all >> the blood that was on him? Do I keep all the equipments/retainers on >> Dragos? > >Don't know. I would guess diablerist gets it all as the diablerie must be >successful before you are "being burned". not quite. :) from online RTR: Reform Body: If the vampire playing Reform Body was being diablerized, but saved himself with Reform Body, the diablerie is considered unsuccessful. The diablerist gets nothing from the victim, and no Blood/Wild Hunt can be called. [LSJ 19970224] >> 2) My March Halcyon (1 for) in combat with Theo Bell that had 6 blood >> on him b4 combat.. I play trap/undead persistence/molotov cocktail >> combo to burn him eventually.. if i play RITUAL OF THE BITTER ROSE, do >> all my vampires get 6 blood each or none since the last round Theo >> Bell had 0 blood? > >None correct. it only counts the amount of blood the opposing vampire had at the time of being burned. >> 3) If a vampire of mine is diablerized, bloodhunt is called, can my >> Jost Werner play TREACHERY? > >Nope. There is nothing to react to. correct. you may not play action modifiers or reaction cards during a referendum to see if the diablerist will be Blood Hunted. >> 4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nekked Dragos can play CRIMSON FURY >> if someone plays AMARANTH, but if he can't play CRIMSON FURY when >> someone takes a diablerie action on him in torpor, right? > >Wrong, He can play it either time: > >Name: Crimson Fury Cardtype: Reaction/Combat Cost: 1 blood >Discipline: Animalism >This card can be played as a reaction card or a combat card. Only usable >when this vampire is being diablerized. *Usable by a tapped vampire.* >*Usable by a vampire in torpor.* >[ani] The diablerie is canceled and the diablerist burns 1 blood. >[ANI] Burn both the diablerist and this vampire. (The diablerie is still >considered successful.) that one was just too obvious. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: >>>1) Someone AMARANTH my Dragos, I play REFORMED BODY. Does the >>>diablerist get all the blood on Dragos or does Dragos gets to keep all >>>the blood that was on him? Do I keep all the equipments/retainers on >>>Dragos? >> > Reform Body: If the vampire playing Reform Body was being diablerized, > but saved himself with Reform Body, the diablerie is considered > unsuccessful. The diablerist gets nothing from the victim, and no > Blood/Wild Hunt can be called. [LSJ 19970224] Correct, as cited. >>>2) My March Halcyon (1 for) in combat with Theo Bell that had 6 blood >>>on him b4 combat.. I play trap/undead persistence/molotov cocktail >>>combo to burn him eventually.. if i play RITUAL OF THE BITTER ROSE, do >>>all my vampires get 6 blood each or none since the last round Theo >>>Bell had 0 blood? >> >>None > > correct. it only counts the amount of blood the opposing vampire had > at the time of being burned. Correct. >>>3) If a vampire of mine is diablerized, bloodhunt is called, can my >>>Jost Werner play TREACHERY? >> >>Nope. There is nothing to react to. > > correct. you may not play action modifiers or reaction cards during a > referendum to see if the diablerist will be Blood Hunted. Correct. >>>4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nekked Dragos can play CRIMSON FURY >>>if someone plays AMARANTH, but if he can't play CRIMSON FURY when >>>someone takes a diablerie action on him in torpor, right? >> >>Wrong, He can play it either time: >> >>Name: Crimson Fury Cardtype: Reaction/Combat Cost: 1 blood >>Discipline: Animalism >>This card can be played as a reaction card or a combat card. Only usable >>when this vampire is being diablerized. *Usable by a tapped vampire.* >>*Usable by a vampire in torpor.* >>[ani] The diablerie is canceled and the diablerist burns 1 blood. >>[ANI] Burn both the diablerist and this vampire. (The diablerie is still >>considered successful.) > > that one was just too obvious. :) Incorrect. Empty Lambach cannot afford the 1 blood cost of Crimson Fury when played as a reaction card, so he cannot play it as a reaction card. He can afford to play it as a combat card, though, since he doesn't have to pay the cost in that case, due to his card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:15:29 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> DiestMutts wrote: >>>>4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nekked Dragos can play CRIMSON FURY >>>>if someone plays AMARANTH, but if he can't play CRIMSON FURY when >>>>someone takes a diablerie action on him in torpor, right? [snip intervening replies] >Incorrect. Empty Lambach cannot afford the 1 blood cost of Crimson Fury >when played as a reaction card, so he cannot play it as a reaction card. Assuming you meant Dragos instead of Lambach, and that we're interpretting "nekked" == "empty"? Xian previously confused as to how a card could be nekked

>>>>4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nekked Dragos can play CRIMSON FURY >>>>if someone plays AMARANTH, but if he can't play CRIMSON FURY when >>>>someone takes a diablerie action on him in torpor, right? >>> >>>Wrong, He can play it either time: >>> >>>Name: Crimson Fury Cardtype: Reaction/Combat Cost: 1 blood >>>Discipline: Animalism >>>This card can be played as a reaction card or a combat card. Only usable >>>when this vampire is being diablerized. *Usable by a tapped vampire.* >>>*Usable by a vampire in torpor.* >>>[ani] The diablerie is canceled and the diablerist burns 1 blood. >>>[ANI] Burn both the diablerist and this vampire. (The diablerie is still >>>considered successful.) >> >> that one was just too obvious. :) > > Incorrect. Empty Lambach cannot afford the 1 blood cost of Crimson Fury > when played as a reaction card, so he cannot play it as a reaction card. > > He can afford to play it as a combat card, though, since he doesn't have > to pay the cost in that case, due to his card text. Oops. Misunderstanding of "nekked". I assumed it refered to equipment or something. I assume Salem made a similar mistake.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:32:48 +0100, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] yeah. i actually read it as "necked", and thought it some sort of weird colloquiallism for diablerie. ie: sinking your teeth into someone's neck. but i guess that's not what it meant at all. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Oops. Misunderstanding of "nekked". I assumed it refered to equipment or > something. I assume Salem made a similar mistake. Sorry, me and my stupid lingo on this other site i use... nekked.. naked..

[ quoted text not captured ] Still not clear - I managed to get that far and assumed you meant equipment and other cards (not that this would have been likely to be relevant). The word you were looking for was "empty". :-)

Nah, the word i was using, referred as naked.. a vampire minion with no blood on him is called naked.. or nekked as the way you pronounce it here.. I think it's just an american thing.. *shrug* :) Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1lggxv48yhyjv$.1q6kt0ay...@40tude.net>... [ quoted text not captured ]