The Mehemet ruling, discussed here , is still on the list of rulings.
There's also this rather interesting ruling on Dragos:
> LSJ wrote:
> If Dragos's opponent plays superior Terror Frenzy, Dragos has to burn one blood for each combat card he plays in that combat.
>
However, Terror Frenzy now explicitly changes card cost (as mentioned under the rulings under Terror Frenzy), so I can't see how this ruling applies anymore (and if it does, some new justification is needed, I feel).
Psyche's now played in combat, so the "The superior is played after combat ends, even though the card is a combat card." ruling looks outdated.
Likewise, the "the superior can be played before or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards." ruling on Psyche no longer applies.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
I was without Internet this week, but fixing the Rulings is part of what I started doing before (some rulings from this website have been added to the list).
Hello Pascal,
Is the Terror Frenzy / Dragos ruling still active?
He still needs to pay 1 blood for the cards in this case?
And Claudio Severino? If he learns superior Animalism, and plays TF at superior,
Would Dragos need to pay 2 blood for each combat card?
Thank you!
Roberto Mautone Jr.
Praetor
> Roberto wrote:
> Hello Pascal,
>
> Is the Terror Frenzy / Dragos ruling still active?
>
> He still needs to pay 1 blood for the cards in this case?
>
> And Claudio Severino? If he learns superior Animalism, and plays TF at superior,
> Would Dragos need to pay 2 blood for each combat card?
>
> Thank you!
>
See latest cardtext.
Name: Terror Frenzy
[Sabbat:R, SW:R, FN:PR, CE:PN, LoB:PG]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Animalism
Frenzy.
[ani] Only usable before range is determined on the first round. During this combat, the opposing minion cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to close range, cannot use presses to continue combat and cannot use equipment.
[ANI] Only usable before range is determined. Combat cards cost the opposing vampire an additional blood this combat. A vampire may play only one Terror Frenzy at superior each combat.
Name: Dragos
[Sabbat:V, SW:PT]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Tzimisce
Group: 2
Capacity: 7
Discipline: vic ANI AUS
Sabbat: Dragos does not have to burn blood to pay the cost of combat cards he plays.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Pascal can you give us a final reply about Dragos and Terror Frenzy or modify/delete the old rules?
We have a player that can't accept the fact of the Terror Frenzy text changes and want to play based on old rules.
Thanks
Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson
LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer
Prince of Rio de Janeiro
Powerbase Rio de Janeiro
> Sydnelson wrote:
> Pascal can you give us a final reply about Dragos and Terror Frenzy or modify/delete the old rules?
>
The ruling was declared obsolete in 2009, though LSJ didn't get round to updating the rulings file. (It appeared that after the White Wolf website moved to a PHP driven thing, LSJ no longer had the direct ability to update the website, so updates were much slower.)
[LSJ 20090107]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > {Dragos:
> > If Dragos's opponent plays superior Terror Frenzy, Dragos has to burn
> > one blood for each combat card he plays in that combat. [LSJ
> > 19990223] }
> >
> > And since
> >
> > {Terror Frenzy:
> > Superior Terror Frenzy affects card costs. [LSJ 20070829] }
> >
> > Dragos no longer (again) has to pay the combat cards cost or
> > additional card costs...
> >
> ...
> I'll remove the obsolete ruling above. Let me know if you find any other
> obsolete rulings there.
>
LSJ also ruled on this in 2007. [LSJ 20070829]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > If so, Dragos, for example, won't have to pay the extra blood of
> > Terror Frenzy (as explicited in the 7/7/7 RTR), but he still has to
> > burn blood for effects like superior Chiropteran Marauder.
> Correct.
>
Correct answers from Ankha and jamesatzephyr.
If Dragos plays Telepathic tracking, the cost of that card is 0 blood, regardlessly of whether the opposing vampire played a Terror Frenzy or not.
> Pascal wrote:
> Correct answers from Ankha and jamesatzephyr.
>
> If Dragos plays Telepathic tracking, the cost of that card is 0 blood, regardlessly of whether the opposing vampire played a Terror Frenzy or not.
>
Thanks for reply, I will forward this to local list.
Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson
LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer
Prince of Rio de Janeiro
Powerbase Rio de Janeiro
> Pascal wrote:
> Correct answers from Ankha and jamesatzephyr.
>
> If Dragos plays Telepathic tracking, the cost of that card is 0 blood, regardlessly of whether the opposing vampire played a Terror Frenzy or not.
>
Does it really reduce the card cost? How many blood would Watenda have to pay to cancel it?
Name: Watenda
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Malkavian
Group: 2
Capacity: 3
Discipline: obf
Camarilla: Once each combat, Watenda can cancel the effect of a combat card the opposing minion plays by burning an amount of blood equal to the blood or pool cost of the card. If the card is a strike card, the opposing minion chooses a new strike.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Correct answers from Ankha and jamesatzephyr.
> >
> > If Dragos plays Telepathic tracking, the cost of that card is 0 blood, regardlessly of whether the opposing vampire played a Terror Frenzy or not.
> >
> Does it really reduce the card cost? How many blood would Watenda have to pay to cancel it?
>
Terror Frenzy increases the cost, so Telepathic Tracking would have a cost of 2 blood, which Dragos would not pay.
Watenda would have to pay the 2 blood to cancel the card.
> Adonai wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > Correct answers from Ankha and jamesatzephyr.
> > >
> > > If Dragos plays Telepathic tracking, the cost of that card is 0 blood, regardlessly of whether the opposing vampire played a Terror Frenzy or not.
> > >
> > Does it really reduce the card cost? How many blood would Watenda have to pay to cancel it?
> >
> Terror Frenzy increases the cost, so Telepathic Tracking would have a cost of 2 blood, which Dragos would not pay.
>
> Watenda would have to pay the 2 blood to cancel the card.
>
Moot point given Watenda don't have anyway.
Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.
> Lech wrote:
> Moot point given Watenda don't have anyway.
>
Not even with two Animalism skills?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Lech wrote:
> > Moot point given Watenda don't have anyway.
> >
> Not even with two Animalism skills?
>
If skill cards (and equivalent) and clan impersonation (mostly to malkavian) hadn't existed, ruling would have been boring...
(just asking : is "didn't existed" correct?)
> Timo wrote:
> If skill cards (and equivalent) and clan impersonation (mostly to malkavian) hadn't existed, ruling would have been boring...
>
Also, Madness Network ruining all your assumptions about whose turn it is.
> Timo wrote:
> (just asking : is "didn't existed" correct?)
>
Assuming you mean grammatically...
"If skill cards didn't exist" - perfectly normal English.
"If skill cards hadn't existed" - perfectly normal English, though may suggest they don't exist anymore. (e.g. "If the Romans hadn't existed, then Europe would have...")
"If skill cards didn't existed" - not English like what she is spoked by natives (and the Queen), but everyone should understand you.
> drnlmza wrote:
> The Mehemet ruling, discussed here , is still on the list of rulings.
>
> There's also this rather interesting ruling on Dragos:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > If Dragos's opponent plays superior Terror Frenzy, Dragos has to burn one blood for each combat card he plays in that combat.
> >
> However, Terror Frenzy now explicitly changes card cost (as mentioned under the rulings under Terror Frenzy), so I can't see how this ruling applies anymore (and if it does, some new justification is needed, I feel).
>
> Psyche's now played in combat, so the "The superior is played after combat ends, even though the card is a combat card." ruling looks outdated.
>
> Likewise, the "the superior can be played before or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards." ruling on Psyche no longer applies.
>
This cost isn't retroactive for Terror Frenzy at ANI is it? If I play flesh of marble and then my opponent plays Terror Frenzy, I don't have to pay for flesh of marble do I?
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
>
> > drnlmza wrote:
> >
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > If Dragos's opponent plays superior Terror Frenzy, Dragos has to burn one blood for each combat card he plays in that combat.
> > >
> > >
> > However, Terror Frenzy now explicitly changes card cost (as mentioned under the rulings under Terror Frenzy), so I can't see how this ruling applies anymore (and if it does, some new justification is needed, I feel).
> >
> This cost isn't retroactive for Terror Frenzy at ANI is it? If I play flesh of marble and then my opponent plays Terror Frenzy, I don't have to pay for flesh of marble do I?
>
It's not, and never has been.
Under the old wording, you played a card, and that card might have a cost (which Dragos didn't pay). Then you also burned a blood, which Dragos did do, like everyone else. But that applied only to cards that were played after Terror Frenzy had been played. So, Dragos (acting) played Carrion Crows, and passed the impulse to the opponent who played Terror Frenzy, and then the impulse goes back to Dragos who thinks "Bugger" and plays Pack Alpha, for which he burns one blood (due to Terror Frenzy). No-one burns any additional burn for the earlier Carrion Crows.
Under the newer wording, acting vampire plays Carrion Crows and passes the impulse. Reacting vampire plays Terror Frenzy. Acting vampire Pack Alpha, and Pack Alpha now costs 1 blood. If that vampire is Dragos, he ignores the cost (and so plays it for free). Other vampires would pay 1 blood for it. No-one would burn any blood to pay for the earlier Carrion Crows.
I note that all these obselete rulings are still listed here. It would be really nice if we could get that cleaned up a bit.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
> Lönkka wrote:
> I'm sure that if you list each of these someone is bound to remove them way quicker that way...
>
Please see the post that started this thread.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa