Greetings all, I have a question involving the use of ghoul retainers
and weapons, specificaly a wooden stake. First, relevent card text:
Ghoul Retainer:
Cost: 2 pool
Ghoul with 2 life, 1 strength
Each round of combat during strike resolution, the ghoul retainer
inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon that is not being used by the
employing minion (or another retainer) during that round. This is not a
strike, athough it does count as "using" the weapon.
Wooden stake
Cost: 0
Melee weapon
Strength damage each strike. If more than 1 damage is inflicted on a
opposing vampire by this weapon in a given combat, then that vampire is
sent to torpor. In that case this weapon is transferred to that
vampire, and he or she doesn't untap as normal during the untap phase
as long as he or she remains in torpor.
So, my questions are:
If a vampire with 2 ghoul retainers and 2 wooden stakes gets into
combat with another vamp do they (the other vamp) go to torpor (the
opposing vampire) assuming range is close allowing both retainers to
use both stakes?
If so, does the resolution of thier respective damage put thier target
into torpor?
Do both stakes transfer to opposing vampire because both were involved
in fulfilling the criteria for the strike? (read as card effect)
Does each strike need to handle damage prevention on a case by case
basis as they are all, in effect, individual strikes (though not really
strikes, just environmental damage with extra rulings attached) or are
they delt with as one "combined" strike?
As you can see the question gets more complicated depending on exactly
how many people involved have acces to a wooden stake, I'm just curious
to see how it would end up. One of our local players likes to use a
vamp with two ghoul allies and 2 assualt rifles (12 pool i know, but
try to survive it without S:CE)
I'll have to quit it here, my head is spinning trying to resolve these
issues. Any input is greatly apreciated.
Cheers
Sutekh_23
"sutekh_23" <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:1141917462.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings all, I have a question involving the use of ghoul retainers
> and weapons, specificaly a wooden stake. First, relevent card text:
>
> Ghoul Retainer:
> Cost: 2 pool
> Ghoul with 2 life, 1 strength
> Each round of combat during strike resolution, the ghoul retainer
> inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon that is not being used by the
> employing minion (or another retainer) during that round. This is not a
> strike, athough it does count as "using" the weapon.
>
> Wooden stake
> Cost: 0
> Melee weapon
> Strength damage each strike. If more than 1 damage is inflicted on a> opposing vampire by ****this weapon**** in a given combat, then that> vampire is
> sent to torpor. In that case this weapon is transferred to that
> vampire, and he or she doesn't untap as normal during the untap phase
> as long as he or she remains in torpor.
>
> So, my questions are:
> If a vampire with 2 ghoul retainers and 2 wooden stakes gets into
> combat with another vamp do they (the other vamp) go to torpor (the
> opposing vampire) assuming range is close allowing both retainers to
> use both stakes?
>
**** above emphasis is mine; it means that _this specific copy_ of Wooden
Stake. In order to activate card text, more than one damage must be done
with a _single_ Wooden Stake. Your example has two Ghouls, each doing one
damage with a Wooden Stake, therefore card text is not fulfilled -> no
torpor, no Stake transfer.
> If so, does the resolution of thier respective damage put thier target
> into torpor?
>
No.
> Do both stakes transfer to opposing vampire because both were involved
> in fulfilling the criteria for the strike? (read as card effect)
>
Moot. If you were somehow able to increase the damage done with each Wooden
Stake (ie two damage with each), then each Stake would be transferred, yes.
> Does each strike need to handle damage prevention on a case by case
> basis as they are all, in effect, individual strikes (though not really
> strikes, just environmental damage with extra rulings attached) or are
> they delt with as one "combined" strike?
Ghoul damage is environmental damage (ie you can prevent any/all
environmental damage with Skin of Rock(s), but not with Skin of Steel). In
your example, this environmental damage is also "Wooden Stake damage", and
"weapon damage", if that matters... (derived from the "counts as used"
phrase on the Ghoul)
Regards
DaveZ
AW
David Zopf schreef:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ghoul retainers have 0 strength, and therefore do no damage with stakes
(unless aided by things like Mass Reality)
Regards,
Graaf Tel
But 2 ghouls can use the same weapon in a single round, so could each
ghoul strike with the ONE wooden stake? Causing two damage with 1
stake? (I can picture one lining it up and the other driving it home)
Relevant ruling: More than one Ghoul Retainer employed by a Minion
could "use" the same weapon (that the Minion is not using) at the same
time. [TOM 19950921]
So now you've got 2 damage from one stake...
Thoughts?
CJay
But ghouls can't garrotte, at least not for the interesting effect,
because that effect, unlike the stake, is strike derived, and Ghouls
don't strike. Still if 2 ghouls can pile on one stake, you can strike
garrotte with the vampire retaining the ghouls.
CJay
<cro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142006681.3...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not sure where you're getting this. If a Ghoul Retainer uses a
Garrote and the opposing vampire is sent to torpor on the same strike
resolution phase for whatever reason (and, of course, the bearer of the
Garrote remains ready), the Garrote may be burned in order to burn
the opposing vampire. This has been specifically confirmed in the
case of Coma, but I don't see why Stake wouldn't work as well.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/b440b9b8df32a941/5a939bd02dd865bf?lnk=st&q='ghoul+retainer'+garrote+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3ALSJ&rnum=1&hl=en#5a939bd02dd865bf
Fred
<ca...@elam.nl> wrote in message
news:1141923219.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Indeed they have now, my bad.
>
> You just need one mass reality then.
> (And a Garrote to prevent the stakes from transferring ?)
No, I don't think using a Garrote would prevent the stakes
from transferring. The stakes transfer as part of the strike
resolution that allows the Garrote to burn the opposing
vampire. Therefore, the stake (or stakes, as the case
may be) would burn as well.
Fred
In message <1142006579.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"cro...@gmail.com" <cro...@gmail.com> writes:
>But 2 ghouls can use the same weapon in a single round, so could each
>ghoul strike with the ONE wooden stake? Causing two damage with 1
>stake? (I can picture one lining it up and the other driving it home)
No, they can't.
>Relevant ruling: More than one Ghoul Retainer employed by a Minion
>could "use" the same weapon (that the Minion is not using) at the same
>time. [TOM 19950921]
Irrelevant. The card text has changed.
"Each round of combat during strike resolution, the Ghoul Retainer
inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon that is not being used by the
employing minion (or another retainer) during that round."
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html
Ghoul Retainer
cannot use a weapon used by another retainer. Has 1 strength.
CE (introduced in Camarilla Edition)
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
The post you quote is clear, and yet this post by LSJ seems to
contradict it...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/ab744bea1d6003ab/d4aabcc449cae981?q='ghoul+retainer'+strike&rnum=1#d4aabcc449cae981
Namely:
> It's the "of this strike" part that makes me wonder since ghoul
> retainer does not strike - it seems that this part does not trigger
> even if the opposing minion would go to torpor.
[LSJ] Right.
-----------
Wooden stake, unlike Garrotte, is not worded that is has to be a strike
for the torpor effect to occur, just 2 damage, where Garrotte is more
specifically worded as a strike-based effect, and the ghoul doesn't
technically strike.
I love this game, but keeping up with clarifications is nearly a full
time job... I searched for Garrotte and Ghould Retainer and got the
included link and though I understood, now I see evidence to the
contrary...
CJay
<cro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142019999.8...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The post you quote is clear, and yet this post by LSJ seems to
> contradict it...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/ab744bea1d6003ab/d4aabcc449cae981?q='ghoul+retainer'+strike&rnum=1#d4aabcc449cae981
Well, I must confess, that certainly answers my question about,
"Where are you getting this?" quite nicely. :-)
Very strange seeming self-contradiction. I didn't notice it
because my search didn't take into account the inconsistant
spelling of the card (Garrotte vs. Garrote) which apparently
takes place on this newsgroup. 'Garrotte' appears to be more
correct (I'm guessing, here) but apparently some dictionaries
give both. Further confusing the matter, 'Garotte' also seems
to be an accepted spelling.
> Namely:
>>> It's the "of this strike" part that makes me wonder since ghoul
>> retainer does not strike - it seems that this part does not trigger
>> even if the opposing minion would go to torpor.>
> [LSJ] Right.
...and then two months later states that a vampire can torporize
his opponent using Coma and if his Ghoul Retainer uses a Garotte
or Garrotte or Garrote :-P that its burn effect can be applied
at will.
I did a bunch of searches and couldn't find and resolution to the
apparent conumdrum so we'll have to click our magic heels and
hope LSJ materializes to resolve it.
I must say, the applicable ruling you found (Garotte can't burn
when used by the Ghoul Retainer because the Ghoul Retainer isn't
"striking" with it) sounds like it makes more sense. And a
few months after the April posting, LSJ posts the same ruling (the
one you found in February) using the exact same logic again.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/aaed2fb296346730/0ea51bfa4b07255f?lnk=st&q=garrotte+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3ALSJ&rnum=3&hl=en#0ea51bfa4b07255f
So probably you're right. I'm just wondering if I missed something
about the April ruling to which I linked that's a distinction I'm
missing or some explanation that resolves the contradictions or
something. LSJ actually having brain fart would be kind of a
"Man bites dog" story. :-) I'm sure that can't be so.
Fred
Fred Scott wrote:
> I did a bunch of searches and couldn't find and resolution to the
> apparent conumdrum so we'll have to click our magic heels and
> hope LSJ materializes to resolve it.
>
> I must say, the applicable ruling you found (Garotte can't burn
> when used by the Ghoul Retainer because the Ghoul Retainer isn't
> "striking" with it) sounds like it makes more sense. And a
> few months after the April posting, LSJ posts the same ruling (the
> one you found in February) using the exact same logic again.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/aaed2fb296346730/0ea51bfa4b07255f?lnk=st&q=garrotte+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3ALSJ&rnum=3&hl=en#0ea51bfa4b07255f
>
> So probably you're right. I'm just wondering if I missed something
> about the April ruling to which I linked that's a distinction I'm
> missing or some explanation that resolves the contradictions or
> something. LSJ actually having brain fart would be kind of a
> "Man bites dog" story. :-) I'm sure that can't be so.
If I'm following you correctly, the "April Ruling" is
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a939bd02dd865bf
In that the vampire, not the Ghoul, is using Garrote.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1142030213....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yes, correct.
> In that the vampire, not the Ghoul, is using Garrote.
That's the second question you respond to. The first question - which actually
comes from "Daz" (quoted by Henrik Isaksson quoted by you) is, "The obviouse (sic)
thing to do would be to have a ghoul retainer use the garrote while the vampire
strikes with come (sic). Would that work?" ("Come" was a misspelling of "Coma".)
You also responded, "Yes."
Although you didn't quote enough additional context to make your response
for me to be entirely sure you meant, "yes, this causes the opposing vampire to be
burnt", that was certainly the sense of what one would expect "yes" to mean
as an answer to that particular question (searching back through the thread).
If you mean "yes" to confirm some other thing, I wondering what I missed.
Fred