L. Scott Johnson#
By personal e-mail to me, Shawn F. Carnes wrote:
> I lost not only the rulings that Tom had yet to resolve, but the
> new ones you wanted me to take a look at. AARRGGHH! Please resend
> them to me both on e-mail and via the newsgroup, and I will get
> them resolved.
OK. (Incidentally, I retrieved these message from DejaNews - the USENET
news archiver. This service has saved my Rulemongering reputation more than
once. A Jyhad-centric search engine is available from my web page, if
you (Shawn) or anyone else finds that an article has slipped through the
bit-cracks. But enough about that.)
Subject: Pending Questions (Re: I guess I'm the net NetRep!) [Long]
Message-Id: <4tku7k$5...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Questions pending from Tom's reign:
[This first one seems to have been answered in the latest RTR, but with
the exception that "Non-Camarilla" is a function of clan, not of card text.
If that is the case, could you also explain why "Non-Camarilla" is a
function of clan, but "Cannot commit diablerie" is a function of card text?]
Subject: Re: Assamites, diablerie, and changing clans
Date: 1996/06/20
Message-Id: <4qbfuk$8...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>I believe we decided that it wasn't worth it to...
>1) allow ex-Assamites to commit diablerie
>2) prohibit vampires who become Assamites from committing diablerie
>3) prohibit Progeny, etc. of Assamites from committing diablerie
>But I am going to have to double check on that.
Card text above all. That should simplify things, although some of it
will run far from the game-world "reality".
For instance, an Assamite (or other Vampire with the 'Non-Cam' card
text) who impersonates a "Camarilla" clan will still be considered a
Non-Camarilla vampire (unless he also has a Writ of Acceptance or has
received the benefit of an acceptance vote /called prior to
impersonation/ - since it won't benefit him after impersonation).
Similarly, a vampire who doesn't have the "Non-Camarilla" text can
impersonate a Non-Camarilla clan, and still be an camarilla.
Similarly, a Justicar of Clan1 who impersonates Clan2 will still be
the Clan1 Justicar (by card text).
Any mis-interpretations so far, TOM?
(I personally think this is the best way to go - having game-world
concept override card text may make sense some of the time, but will
eventually lead to far more headaches than it is worth).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Riposte question
Date: 1996/06/26
Message-Id: <4qr8qc$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
>>OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue)
>> the Toreador plays a "Riposte"
>> the blue blood playes a "Majesty"
>>Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood?
>I'd guess "yes", since the damage from riposte is somehow (not yet
>explained) granted immunity from the termination of the strike
>resolution phase (as caused by Riposte). It must, therefore, be
>immune to further terminations of the strike resolution phase.
S:CE resolves before any other type of strike, but precedence
is never given to the acting minion's strike resolution, only
to the acting minion's strike declaration.
The section (page 30 in the V:tES rulebook) is a reworking
of the rules attempting to clarify the earlier mis-rule from
Jyhad - that the blocker doesn't announce a strike if the
acting minion plays a S:CE.
Is it the intention of pg. 30 in the V:tES rulebook to make the
acting minion's strike resolve first (or can we have a little
errata to remedy the loophole)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Ferryman; to be or not to be Giovanni?
Date: 1996/06/27
Message-Id: <4qu1l5$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
refp...@best.com (Rory) writes:
>On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:08:02 GMT, fe...@hearth.ultranet.com (Mark
>Amidon) wrote:
>>I
>>Hardly! Look at the most common Giovanni retainer, the Zombie. With three or
>>two Pathos counters on him, the Zombie adds 1 damage per round of close
>>combat, and when he gets down to one Pathos counter, the vampire with the
>>Zombie burns him for two blood! Then the Ferryman brings him back!
>Actually the card does not go into your ash heap but out of the game
>and so nothing can bring it back anymore.
He is only removed from the game when he has *no* Pathos counters on
him. If you use the Zombie's own special ability (burn him to give
the employing vampire two blood) before the third Pathos counter is
removed, then the Zombie goes to the ash heap (and all Pathos Counters
fall off and are forgotten).
The point of contention here is whether or not the Wraith's ability
still applies if the target Retainer returns to the ash heap (i.e.,
would the Retainer who lost all his Pathos counters by going to the
ash heap still be bound by other game effects?). I'd say the Zombie
is free because he is out of play (in the ash heap) by the time he
loses his Pathos counters, and therefore not governed by card text
not expressly directed at ash-heap cards.
TOM?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Q: [TOM] New Rotschreck Ruling
Date: 1996/07/01
Message-Id: <4r90r1$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Robert Goudie <Robert...@studio.disney.com> writes:
>From the most recent list of errata:
>Rotschreck - Master Out-Of-Turn:
>Should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to inflict
>aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor. During
>the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of
>untapping the vampire." [RTR]
>Is played when strikes are chosen, not during resolution. [TOM 960521]
>!NEW!
>*****
>When strikes are chosen? So am I correct in understanding that a
>Rotschreck can be played against a burst of sunlight strike or a hand
>strike modified from a Dawn Operation or a hand strike that was
>modified via a Wolf Claws BEFORE strikes were chosen, but that it CANNOT
>be used when a hand strike is modified via Wolf Claws during strike
>resolution?
Wolf Claws must be used *before* strike resolution (i.e., at the last
moments of the strike announcement phase) in order to be applied to the
strike. So, while Rotschreck couldn't be used if you wait 'til strike
resolution to play claws, it won't matter, because the claws won't turn the
damage of the strike being resolved into aggravated damage.
<begin soapbox>
A better question would be "Can you play Rotscheck on a gun strike
that is modified by Dragon's Breath Rounds?" (since ammo cards *are*
played during strike resolution, by card text.) For some reason the
Rules Team chose to make the Claws resolve differently from the ammo
modifiers, even though the ammo timing is cleaner and easier to
follow. At the time, this was done in an attempt to avoid dividing the
strike resolution phase into 'apply strike effects' and 'heal damage'.
Such a division would simplify all of the above without introducing
any new rulings nor timing issues, and actually makes sense from a
game mechanics POV.
The question that caused the poor ruling from the Design Team on the
timing of Claws was "Can I play claws after playing a damage-prevention
card?" Naturally, this should be disallowed to avoid "slap" situations.
By cleanly separating the 'apply strike' from the 'heal/prevent damage'
activity, the desired result is acheived.
<end soapbox>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Alexandra
Date: 1996/07/05
Message-Id: <4rj2k6$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
gaus...@uiuc.edu (David Gausebeck) writes:
>>Well, qouting from the DS errata:
>>
>>DSE> Alexandra [DS] - Vampire (Tor) (11):
>>DSE> Can use her untap ability at any point during the minion phase,
>>DSE> including during a poilitical action. [TOM 960214]
>*sigh*
>That's what I was afraid of.
Don't be disheartened - the ruling says that she may do here thing
even during a political action. It doesn't deny the possibility of
doing her thing at other times during the turn (i.e., it is missing
the "only" modifier to "during the minion phase").
The ruling doesn't deny the "I bring out Alexandra and she untaps Anson"
effect (though the rules team may (in the future) add the "only" modifier
here, as they are want to do everywhere else :-).
------
Subject: Re: Alexandra
Date: 1996/07/05
Message-Id: <4rjpv3$a...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Timo...@mail.airmail.net (Timothy Coffman) writes:
>In article <4rj2k6$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
>Scott Johnson) wrote:
>>gaus...@uiuc.edu (David Gausebeck) writes:
>>>>Well, qouting from the DS errata:
>>>>
>>>>DSE> Alexandra [DS] - Vampire (Tor) (11):
>>>>DSE> Can use her untap ability at any point during the minion phase,
>>>>DSE> including during a poilitical action. [TOM 960214]
>>
>>Don't be disheartened - the ruling says that she may do here thing
>>even during a political action. It doesn't deny the possibility of
>>doing her thing at other times during the turn (i.e., it is missing
>>the "only" modifier to "during the minion phase").
>>
>>The ruling doesn't deny the "I bring out Alexandra and she untaps Anson"
>>effect (though the rules team may (in the future) add the "only" modifier
>>here, as they are want to do everywhere else :-).
>I may be misunderstanding, but I think it clearly disallows that since you
>bring Alexandra out during influence phase.
Yes, you bring her out in the Influence phase.
And, yes, you can use her ability during a political action.
And, no, that doesn't restrict her use during the Influence phase.
Because, as I said, it has nowhere been said that you can "only" use her
ability during your minion phase.
It has been said that you "can" use her ability at that time, but her use
isn't *restricted* to *only* that time.
(Similarly, that you can burn the edge for a vote during your turn does
*not* "clearly disallow" burning the edge when it is not your turn.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: TOM: Q: DS: Anathema
Date: 1996/07/08
Message-Id: <4rr13k$3...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
If the target of a successful Anathema vote is in combat, and
chooses a strike which costs him his last blood, is he burned
immediately upon paying for the strike, or is he only burned
when the combat is over (or immediately after the strike
resolves)?
More thoughts:
If the target is at zero blood before combat (and has his hunt
blocked, for example), does Anathema apply (since the target
isn't reduced to zero "due to combat")?
If the target spends his last blood *before* combat (either by
burning blood to block Donal or a Cam. Exemplary, or by spending
X blood for X maneuvers via the Ruins of Villars Abbey), and is
therfore not reduced to zero during combat (but rather, remains at
zero and is possibly sent to torpor or burned), does the opposing
minion get Anathema credit for the reduction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pending Questions (Re: I guess I'm the net NetRep!) [Long]
Message-Id: <4tl4j4$8...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Oh yeah, one more question pending from Tom's reign (I missed it since it
wasn't a post of mine, and I was performing a rather ego-centric search
of postings :-)
What is the reasoning behind the Blood to Water ruling?
1) Why bother trying to limit a non-strike-resolution effect to
a certain range in the first place.
2) Why do it (set a limitation, that is) in a manner that doesn't
have a meaningful effect on the game - only a new rule to remember?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96
From: ro...@duke.usask.ca (Nicole Roy)
Date: 1996/07/16
Message-Id: <4seutu$4...@tribune.usask.ca>
The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote:
: On 14 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
: > >> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
: > This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at
: > range as printed. Sorry for the confusion.
: You've just added to mine...
: B2W, What does it now do? The ruling said that it is not usable at
: range. Now you say that that ruling is errata to the card and it
: obviously works at range.
: What?
I believe Tom is saying this: As written, it is perfectly acceptable to
use tha card at range. The above statement, which was called a ruling, is
more properly called errata, the difference being that rulings interpret
what is said on the card whereas errata add new information to make the
card work 'properly' (in the eyes of the Rules Team).
Since that point, LSJ has pointed out that even if it _is_ errata, it
isn't _enough_ errata to make the card work the way they apparently want
it to. Since BtW isn't a strike, it can be played at any time during a
combat round - including immediately as the round starts, before anyone
has played maneuvers and combat is (evenif only temporarily) at close
range.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Shawn: Q: Exhausting your library and Kherebutu
Message-Id: <4tlmha$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
If you've exhausted your library, have Kherebutu in play,
and have fewer cards in you hand than your maximum hand size,
1) When Kherebutu is burned (and goes to your library), does
he immediately pop into you hand? (First impression anser
is 'no', but then...)
2) If 'no', then if you run out of cards in your hand (zero
cards in hand plus zero in the library), and Kherebutu is
burned (and goes to your library), how do you get to draw
him (since you only draw to replace cards that you play)?
3) If 'no' (to question 1), than can you still withdraw?
(The rules require to to have exhausted your library - is
that a one-time event, or a current status? Once exhausted,
can you always then withdraw, even if your library becomes
un-exhausted?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Shawn: Pending Correction (Re: Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96)
Message-Id: <4tns82$d...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Oh yeah, one more pending item from The Age of Tom:
The ruling on Bindusara vs. Suden Reversal is too broadly written:
Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96
Date: 1996/07/09
>CARD RULINGS
>2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's
>ability.
You mean "can burn cards that are being played ..." (or are we going back
to the pre-Nov'94 ruling that Sudden Reversal can burn a card in play? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Shawn: Errata: Control of Phobia and Temptation.
Message-Id: <4tnrid$d...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Phobia and Temptation need errata stating that control remains
with the controller of the vampire who brough the card into play.
(Similar to the errata on Shackles of Ekindu).
Otherwise, the "you" in card text (which always refers to the controller)
will render these two cards useless (Taking control of your own vampire
or preventing your own vampire from blocking one of your actions).
It is also possible that, like the Shackles, the "you" will always refer
to the controller of the vampire who brought the card into play - even if
that vampire changes controllers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Timing of presses and Press-step effects.
Message-Id: <4tqomp$j...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Shawn,
When exactly can press-step effects (like Pulled Fangs) be used?
1. Before any presses are announced.
2. After all presses are completed (neither minion presses or one of them
fails to respond to a press).
or
3. Any time during the press step.
For instance, could I withhold using Pulled Fangs until I was certain that
no new round would be begun (If I was wanting to used Growing Fury first,
for example, to burn the opposing vampire rather than just send him to
torpor).
Or could I use Fangs as a defensive measure (say, if a Tremere stole some
blood while I simply used hands for one damage, could I then wait until
the Tremere pressed before playing Fangs)?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A one-bit brain with a
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | parity error.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |