Maybe this has been asked before, but on the card Ritual of the Bitter
Rose it says :
"All your ready vampires gain the amount of blood from the blood bank that
is on a vampire you are destroying by diablerie. Usable in combat if an
enemy is burned. Bloodhunt may only be called on the vampire who commited
the diablerie."
My question relates to the second sentance. How can a vampire have any
blood on it if it is being burned in combat? The way to burn a vampire is
to do aggravated damage when the target has no blood. I can see that you
can commit diablerie in comat via Amaranth, but this is not burning.
Any thoughts?
--
An optimist says the glass is half full.
A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
I say there's just too much ice in the darn thing...
In article <D71Aw...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Christopher Kelly <aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>is on a vampire you are destroying by diablerie. Usable in combat if an
>enemy is burned. Bloodhunt may only be called on the vampire who commited
>>My question relates to the second sentance. How can a vampire have any
>blood on it if it is being burned in combat? The way to burn a vampire is
>to do aggravated damage when the target has no blood. I can see that you
>can commit diablerie in comat via Amaranth, but this is not burning.
If a vampire commits diablerie, it's burning another vampire.
Since Amaranth allows diablerie, by extension it's allowing burning. So
really, Amaranth is burning. And as you correctly note, unless Amaranth
is the method by which an enemy is burned in combat, the Ritual isn't
really worth much.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) scribbles:
:Christopher Kelly <aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
:>My question relates to the second sentance. How can a vampire have any
:>blood on it if it is being burned in combat? The way to burn a vampire is
:>to do aggravated damage when the target has no blood. I can see that you
:>can commit diablerie in comat via Amaranth, but this is not burning.
Actually, if one receives more aggrataved damage than their blood+1, then
they are burnt. By this token, someone being hit for 4pts of aggravated
with only 2 blood is burnt, with the two blood on them. And in our
circle, the ritual could be played... giving the victor's vampires +2
blood each.
: If a vampire commits diablerie, it's burning another vampire.
:Since Amaranth allows diablerie, by extension it's allowing burning. So
:really, Amaranth is burning. And as you correctly note, unless Amaranth
:is the method by which an enemy is burned in combat, the Ritual isn't
:really worth much.
See above. It's all a matter of how one interprets healing damage, and I
do beleive the rules read in favour of the above interpretation.
Seb.
In article <3n5r9q$5...@knot.queensu.ca>,
Romu Sebastian J B <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) scribbles:
>:Christopher Kelly <aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>:>My question relates to the second sentance. How can a vampire have any
>:>blood on it if it is being burned in combat? The way to burn a vampire is
>:>to do aggravated damage when the target has no blood. I can see that you
>:>can commit diablerie in comat via Amaranth, but this is not burning.
>
>Actually, if one receives more aggrataved damage than their blood+1, then
>they are burnt. By this token, someone being hit for 4pts of aggravated
>with only 2 blood is burnt, with the two blood on them. And in our
>circle, the ritual could be played... giving the victor's vampires +2
>blood each.
Each point of damage a vampire receives is separately handled,
and is prevented, healed or flagged as a torpor blow, as appropriate.
The acutal burn point is X+2, not X+1 (where X is the amount of blood on
a vampire). In your example, the first point flags the vampire for
torpor. The second and third are each healed. The fourth burns the
vampire. By the time the vampire is burned, there is no blood left on
her, as she has used the other points to heal the damage done to her.
If diablerie is committed and the Ritual of the Bitter Rose is played at
that time, then your vampires will gain no blood.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3n5r9q$5...@knot.queensu.ca> 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Romu Sebastian J B) writes:
>Actually, if one receives more aggrataved damage than their blood+1, then
>they are burnt. By this token, someone being hit for 4pts of aggravated
>with only 2 blood is burnt, with the two blood on them. And in our
>circle, the ritual could be played... giving the victor's vampires +2
>blood each.
[Unofficial interpretation ensues:]
IMO, this is a problem with an error in the wording of RotBR.
The card should say "Diabolorized in combat", not "burned in
combat". RotBR should not be playable when a vampire is burned
by aggravated damage.
RotBR is a very powerful card. Restricting its playing conditions
appropriately is a very good way to balance it. Diabolorization
is a much tighter condition than just "burn", because the former
is usually subject to a bloodhunt.
Scott, please add this to your house rules list, if you read it.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>In article <3n5r9q$5...@knot.queensu.ca> 3s...@qlink.queensu.ca (Romu Sebastian J B) writes:>>Actually, if one receives more aggrataved damage than their blood+1, then
>>they are burnt. By this token, someone being hit for 4pts of aggravated
>>with only 2 blood is burnt, with the two blood on them. And in our
>>circle, the ritual could be played... giving the victor's vampires +2
>>blood each.
Personal Opinion:
Actually, he should be burnt with no blood. Same as taking X blood
from a gun, +2 agg from DBR. You have to lose the blood first.
p.32
"In this case [more than one agg. received], the excess *is paid* in blood."
The blood is always paid. If it is not sufficient, the vampire is burned.
>[Unofficial interpretation ensues:]>IMO, this is a problem with an error in the wording of RotBR.
>The card should say "Diabolorized in combat", not "burned in
>combat". RotBR should not be playable when a vampire is burned
>by aggravated damage.
RotBR would be useless to play when a vampire is burned from agg.,
since everyone would get zero blood.
>RotBR is a very powerful card. Restricting its playing conditions
>appropriately is a very good way to balance it. Diabolorization
>is a much tighter condition than just "burn", because the former
>is usually subject to a bloodhunt.>Scott, please add this to your house rules list, if you read it.
OK, but you realize that I don't think it changes much - except not being
able to cycle the card.
I'm for it, but only because it changes nothing in my view.
-----
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu)
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rules' Monger.