Garrote

Hi there, This is regarding this Facebook comment and thread . In [LSJ 20010725] , LSJ ruled that burning Garrote to burn a vampire is a replacement effect like Decapitate and Amaranth. > LSJ wrote: > Like Decapitate and Amaranth, burning the Garrote would burn the opposing > vampire before he hits torpor. > This isn't terribly relevant for that Facebook thread, as the answer for Tension is one pool is burned either way - either the vampire doesn't go to torpor at all, or it goes to torpor and then isn't ready when it burns - but it would be relevant if a vampire had Fame on them, or similar torpor-requiring effects (Sylvester Simms, Hasina Kesi, Jaggedy Andy etc.). The thing is, Garrote has been reprinted since then, and is still not worded as a replacement effect, while Decapitate and Amaranth are worded as replacement effects. Is the ruling out of date (or perhaps wrongly conceived in the first place)? Or does the card text of Garrote need to be updated? Garrote: Strike: strength damage, only usable at close range. If the opposing vampire goes into torpor during the strike resolution step of this strike and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire. This is not considered diablerie. Amaranth: Only usable by a vampire who can commit diablerie. Only usable when the opposing vampire should go to torpor. Diablerize the opposing vampire instead. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. Decapitate: Only usable when the opposing vampire is going into torpor; not usable by a vampire being burned or going into torpor. Burn the opposing vampire instead of sending that vampire to torpor.

Nice to see it here. I can answer in same way I did on FB, but I'm curious what the "big heads" would say. For me its quite clear as garrote says: "If the opposing vampire goes into torpor during the strike resolution step of this strike and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire." So when you are using this garrote special ability? During combat, right? If it is a yes then: A vampire burned in combat does not pass through Torpor. [RTR 19941109]

> Marcin wrote: > A vampire burned in combat does not pass through Torpor. [RTR 19941109] > That's about a wholly different question, coming from this: [RTR 19941109] > Tom wrote: > Vampires burned by aggravated damage do not pass through torpor on their way out. > The way it's been summarized in the general rulings is a bit weird. It doesn't apply to Julius, for example, who goes into torpor then burns, which is somewhat like Garrote's text: [LSJ 20011121] > > LSJ wrote: > Julius goes to torpor before his card text burns him, if that's > what you're asking. > His card text: "If Julius goes into torpor, burn him." is the same as it was then. It's a bit awkward that it's two separate steps with Julius, but a replacement effect with Garrote, despite similar text. There's also a separate ruling: > > General wrote: > If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. [RTR 19960708] > ...which is initially about ordering Return to Innocence and Day Operation, but applies to any event where the two things are happening with the same timing.

Kinda bizarre that "If the opposing vampire goes into torpor..." activates something that burns the vampire and then the vampire wouldn't be considered to have entered torpor... Because the effect wouldn't have been usable if the vampire hadn't entered torpor. To me at least it would be better worded if it said something to the effect: "If the opposing vampire goes into torpor during the strike resolution step of this strike and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire INSTEAD OF IT GOING TO TORPOR." Finnish Politics!

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Is the ruling out of date (or perhaps wrongly conceived in the first place)? Or does the card text of Garrote need to be updated? > Little help? And it would be helpful if this included a look at Julius's card text, because of the similarities in wording.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Is the ruling out of date (or perhaps wrongly conceived in the first place)? Or does the card text of Garrote need to be updated? > > > Little help? And it would be helpful if this included a look at Julius's card text, because of the similarities in wording. > And still, no response. Can't get answers on Facebook, can't get answers on the V:EKN forum. BCP, please could you do something about the ability of players to get official answers to rules problems?

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > BCP, please could you do something about the ability of players to get official answers to rules problems? > Hi BCP, Please could you investigate why your Rules Director is ignoring questions for weeks at a time - even when asked in his "preferred" forum? If you're expecting people to pay for your card game, the least you can do is ensure that you provide answers to ruling questions. That's how serious card games work.

Hi James, The question is on my review list, answer will be provided as soon as possible. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Hi James, > > The question is on my review list, answer will be provided as soon as possible. > Is that similar to Blizzard's "soon"? 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.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > BCP, please could you do something about the ability of players to get official answers to rules problems? > > > Hi BCP, > > Please could you investigate why your Rules Director is ignoring questions for weeks at a time - even when asked in his "preferred" forum? > > If you're expecting people to pay for your card game, the least you can do is ensure that you provide answers to ruling questions. That's how serious card games work. > With all respect given to the people in charge, requiring some weird autocratic and untimely process via asking questions on an internet forum for rulings is less than ideal, especially now that there's paying customers who would like answers sooner than later. I'm hoping the new rulebook and some new rules resources will help make this no longer an issue.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > In [LSJ 20010725] , LSJ ruled that burning Garrote to burn a vampire is a replacement effect like Decapitate and Amaranth. > > > LSJ wrote: > > Like Decapitate and Amaranth, burning the Garrote would burn the opposing > > vampire before he hits torpor. > > > This isn't terribly relevant for that Facebook thread, as the answer for Tension is one pool is burned either way - either the vampire doesn't go to torpor at all, or it goes to torpor and then isn't ready when it burns - but it would be relevant if a vampire had Fame on them, or similar torpor-requiring effects (Sylvester Simms, Hasina Kesi, Jaggedy Andy etc.). > > The thing is, Garrote has been reprinted since then, and is still not worded as a replacement effect, while Decapitate and Amaranth are worded as replacement effects. > > Is the ruling out of date (or perhaps wrongly conceived in the first place)? Or does the card text of Garrote need to be updated? > The ruling stands as it is better to have different cards with similar effects behaving the same way. Garrote will be reprinted to reflect it (using the "would go to torpor... burn the vampire instead" template). In the meantime, I'll update the official card text. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > This is regarding this Facebook comment and thread . > I don't have access to it to that content/comment, though I do have access to the group. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director