Here are two questions regarding Rotschreck how it works with other
cards:
1) Lots of regular damage to someone in a combat by a Brujah who
then plays pulled fangs. Someone else plays Rotschreck (not on their
turn of course). What happens to the hand damage? the aggravated
damage?
2) Acting vamp with Thaum in combat with vamp carrying ivory bow.
Thaum vamp uses Blood Fury so that if bow strike is attempted, no
damage will be done, Blocker uses Ivory Bow and plays Rotschreck.
Methuselah of Tremere has a fit because, he says, there was no
threat of agg. damage so Rotschreck can not be used.
Here's another question regarding Aching Beauty:
3) Acting Aching Beauty is blocked & plays Change of Target. Does the
blocker get the pool back that he payed to block?
Thanks
Gary
CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote:
: Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes:: >2) Acting vamp with Thaum in combat with vamp carrying ivory bow.: >Thaum vamp uses Blood Fury so that if bow strike is attempted, no
: >damage will be done, Blocker uses Ivory Bow and plays Rotschreck.
: >Methuselah of Tremere has a fit because, he says, there was no
: >threat of agg. damage so Rotschreck can not be used.: This is a little tougher, but Tom has said that any threat of Aggro - even
: non-ranged aggro while at range - permits Rotschreck. Remember,
: Rotschreck is a phobic reaction to the possibility of aggravated damage.
: The Tremere may know, intellectually, that his spell will prevent use of
: the Bow, but his phobia will still be in play, causing him to run in
: irrational fear from the Bow.
Just to keep things official, Curt... (and I know you disagree with this,
but you should still mention that you are using a house rule):
The Rotschreck will cause the vampire _with_the_bow_ to do the running,
not the vamp with Thaumaturgy in tha above example.
At least, that is the _latest_ ruling.... :-)
Thus, according to the 'official' way to play Rotschreck, it would be a
very foolish thing for the vampire carrying the bow to play a Rotschreck
on himself, causing himself to go to torpor.
As always, YMMV.
Shane H.W. Travis | Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for
tra...@duke.usask.ca | thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Hebrews 13:2
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes:
>> >Here are two questions regarding Rotschreck how it works with other
> >cards:
>
> >1) Lots of regular damage to someone in a combat by a Brujah who
> >then plays pulled fangs. Someone else plays Rotschreck (not on their
> >turn of course). What happens to the hand damage? the aggravated
> >damage?
>> Rotschreck causes a combat ends. Any damage already resolved still
> sticks. PF can't be played until the damage has already happened, so the
> hand damage sticks. The PF damage will be canceled.
OK - so the PF damage is cancelled, but what about the other effects
of PF like no hunting etc?
tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) wrote:
> Just to keep things official, Curt... (and I know you disagree with this,
> but you should still mention that you are using a house rule):
>
> The Rotschreck will cause the vampire _with_the_bow_ to do the running,
> not the vamp with Thaumaturgy in tha above example.
What follows in MNSHO:
I don't care what the `official' ruling is. The card reads only one
way. It says:
"Play when a MINION attempts to use aggravated damage against a
VAMPIRE, whether successfully or not. Combat ends before damage is
resolved. That VAMPIRE is put in torpor, tapped, with this card on
it..."
I know this argument has gone on for a while, but it is perfectly
clear on the card - I don't know what all the fuss is about.
Gary Schwartz
Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes:
>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>>> Rotschreck causes a combat ends. Any damage already resolved still
>> sticks. PF can't be played until the damage has already happened, so
the
>> hand damage sticks. The PF damage will be canceled.>OK - so the PF damage is cancelled, but what about the other effects
>of PF like no hunting etc?
I don't know of an official ruling on this. If the target still has his
fangs, (as demonstrated by not taking the aggro) I can't see how his fangs
could have been pulled, so I don't think the other effects should apply.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Using Rotschreck in response to Pulled Fangs will just nullify the damage.
The rest of the Fangs' effect takes place normally.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes:
>Here are two questions regarding Rotschreck how it works with other
>cards:>1) Lots of regular damage to someone in a combat by a Brujah who
>then plays pulled fangs. Someone else plays Rotschreck (not on their
>turn of course). What happens to the hand damage? the aggravated
>damage?
Rotschreck causes a combat ends. Any damage already resolved still
sticks. PF can't be played until the damage has already happened, so the
hand damage sticks. The PF damage will be canceled.
>2) Acting vamp with Thaum in combat with vamp carrying ivory bow.>Thaum vamp uses Blood Fury so that if bow strike is attempted, no
>damage will be done, Blocker uses Ivory Bow and plays Rotschreck.
>Methuselah of Tremere has a fit because, he says, there was no
>threat of agg. damage so Rotschreck can not be used.
This is a little tougher, but Tom has said that any threat of Aggro - even
non-ranged aggro while at range - permits Rotschreck. Remember,
Rotschreck is a phobic reaction to the possibility of aggravated damage.
The Tremere may know, intellectually, that his spell will prevent use of
the Bow, but his phobia will still be in play, causing him to run in
irrational fear from the Bow. In the game, vampires can Rotschreck from
things like Bic lighters and photo flashes, so remember this phobia is
very sensitive.
>Here's another question regarding Aching Beauty:>3) Acting Aching Beauty is blocked & plays Change of Target. Does the
>blocker get the pool back that he payed to block?
Nope. CoT cancels the action and the combat, but not anything else (such
as side effects from blocking). Ouch.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In <3tu6dc$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes:
>>>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>>>>> Rotschreck causes a combat ends. Any damage already resolved still
>>> sticks. PF can't be played until the damage has already happened, so>the>>> hand damage sticks. The PF damage will be canceled.>>>OK - so the PF damage is cancelled, but what about the other effects
>>of PF like no hunting etc?>
>I don't know of an official ruling on this. If the target still has his
>fangs, (as demonstrated by not taking the aggro) I can't see how his fangs
>could have been pulled, so I don't think the other effects should apply.
>
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
I think the answer depends on what the Pulled Fangs card really is.
If it is primarily an aggravated damage card, and the other effects follow
from the aggravated damage, then either the rotschreck or a damage
prevention card would cancel the damage, and consequently the other effects of
the card. In this interpretation, the point of aggravated damage is the pulling
of the fangs, and its prevention means no fangs were pulled. But if the pulling
of fangs is not primarily a damage card, but a card which results in several
separate effects (i.e. pulling the fangs causes aggravated damage, no hunting, etc.)
then preventing the damage does not stop the other effects. I personally favor
the first interpretation.
j-al...@uiuc.edu writes:
>curt adams writes:
>(Re Rotschreck and Pulled Fangs)>>
>>I don't know of an official ruling on this. If the target still has his
>>fangs, (as demonstrated by not taking the aggro) I can't see how his
fangs
>>could have been pulled, so I don't think the other effects should apply.>I think the answer depends on what the Pulled Fangs card really is.>If it is primarily an aggravated damage card, and the other effects
follow
>from the aggravated damage, then either the rotschreck or a damage
>prevention card would cancel the damage, and consequently the other
effects of
>the card. In this interpretation, the point of aggravated damage is the
pulling
>of the fangs, and its prevention means no fangs were pulled. But if the
pulling
>of fangs is not primarily a damage card, but a card which results in
several
>separate effects (i.e. pulling the fangs causes aggravated damage, no
hunting, etc.)
>then preventing the damage does not stop the other effects. I personally
favor
>the first interpretation.
Tom has issued a ruling on this card saying that in the above situation
there is no damage but the other effects of the card remain (equivalent to
your 2nd interpretation, but the damage is not prevented - there simply is
no damage resolution phase for it to take effect). This is a sustainable
argument via a literal reading of the Jyhad cards although it makes no
sense in the context of what's going on with the Fangs (i.e., when the
fangs are pulled, the vampire can no longer hunt (no way to pop necks) and
takes aggro damage from the blood draining out of his mouth). however,
Jyhad is a game first, and sometimes illogical situations are the price we
pay for a manageable and balanced game (consider the cost to a Methuseleh
to brings out guns.)
Incidentally, preventing the damage would not necessarily restore the
other abilities - a Fortitudinous vampire might not be directly hurt by
having its fangs pulled, but they'd still be gone, impeding its hunting.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)