Rules Team Rulings 12-JUL-1999

Question: If I have Talbot's Chainsaw and the opposing minion plays a Trap, does Talbot's Chainsaw's press force me to press to end combat? Answer: No. Talbot's Chainsaw's press is only usable to continue combat (errata). Question: What happens when a Progeny (or an Embrace or a Creation Rite) is Banished? Answer: It is placed in the uncontrolled region and continues to be treated as a vampire of capacity 1 (plus any capacity from skill cards or other master cards, of course), and it can be influenced as normal. Question: What happens if I Mind Rape a vampire and, on my next turn (when I have control of that vampire), I call and successfully pass a Banishment naming that vampire? Is he placed in my uncontrolled region or his previous controller's uncontrolled region? Answer: The Banishment effect breaks the lingering "control" effect of the (already burned) Mind Rape, since such effects are not among the things that a Banished vampire "remembers". So the banished vampire is sent to his previous controller's uncontrolled region (since the Mind Rape effect is no longer in effect). (The answer is the same for Malkavian Dementia's effect as well as Ayelea's effect). Question: Does Soul Burn (like Blood Fury and Blood Rage) nullify the *current* strike of the opposing minion's weapon? Answer: Yes. It functions similarly to Blood Fury and Blood Rage (errata). Treat it as if it read: Strike: 1R damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. Superior: As above, but for 2R damage. This errata is issued to match the original design intent of the card, and to match similar existing cards. Question: Do you get the maneuver from Guard Dogs even if you fail to block the action? (i.e., untap with Guard Dogs, block with a different vampire, and then use Fast Reaction)? Answer: No. You only get the maneuver if you successfully block the bleed (errata). This errata is issued to match the original design intent of the card, and to match similar existing cards. Question: What is the minimum capacity of a vampire? Answer: One. No effect can result in a vampire having a capacity of less than one (like Violet Tremain, Mind of a Child, and Purity of the Beast, for example). Question: Can I play Life Boon to save my predator and give her all my pool, thereby ousting myself and gaining 1 VP? Answer: Yes. (And your predator would gain 6 pool for the oust, in addition.) -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Well...after a month of paid unemployment (gotta love beach time clauses in consultant contracts) I'm back at work. Since I was busy with other things during that month, I really haven't been following my (many) newsgroups...and I see that LSJ has issued some rulings. Most of the things look like clarifications stated earlier or are straight from card text, but there are a couple that are new... > Question: Does Soul Burn (like Blood Fury and Blood > Rage) nullify the *current* strike of the opposing > minion's weapon? > Answer: Yes. It functions similarly to Blood Fury and > Blood Rage (errata). I'm glad that this was ruled this way. Granted, I usually favor no text changes, but consistency in games, like gravy, is a good thing. > Question: What is the minimum capacity of a vampire? > Answer: One. No effect can result in a vampire having a > capacity of less than one (like Violet Tremain, Mind > of a Child, and Purity of the Beast, for example). There were a couple of cards that stated that the capacity could not go below zero. With the contradictions inherent in a zero cap vampire, this is a decent change. On a side note, any news about new cards or is it still all guesswork? Noal -- "Sure, it's every American's right to post false or misleading information on the Internet." -The Detroit News [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > [clip] > On a side note, any news about new cards or is it still all > guesswork? More information is available but hasn't been announced yet. An official announcement is (hopefully) in our near future. -- Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net _________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization

> More information is available but hasn't been announced yet. An > official announcement is (hopefully) in our near future. GenCon maybe? When is that, btw? Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noal McDonald wrote: > > Question: What is the minimum capacity of a vampire? > > Answer: One. No effect can result in a vampire having a > > capacity of less than one (like Violet Tremain, Mind > > of a Child, and Purity of the Beast, for example). > > There were a couple of cards that stated that the capacity > could not go below zero. With the contradictions inherent > in a zero cap vampire, this is a decent change. Like the Soul Burn errata, this ruling was also issued with an eye toward consistency. The first capacity-reducing effect (Wrath of the Inner Circle) stated (as a reminder, even) that "a vampire's capacity cannot go below 1." (In addition to the desire to avoid the strangeness that comes with capacities of zero.) -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:35:44 GMT "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > More information is available but hasn't been announced yet. An > > official announcement is (hopefully) in our near future. > GenCon maybe? When is that, btw? 3 weeks; first weekend in August. Mike -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).

In article <378F6DC0...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes >(In addition to the desire to avoid the strangeness that comes >with capacities of zero.) Was there anything stopping capacities becoming even less than zero? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <378F6DC0...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> > writes > >(In addition to the desire to avoid the strangeness that comes > >with capacities of zero.) > > Was there anything stopping capacities becoming even less than zero? Just card text. All capacity-reducing effects except one specified a minimum capacity. And the one that didn't (Purity of the Beast [AH]) was an action, so could not reduce the acting vampire to less than zero. The other cards were: Wrath of the Inner Circle [DS] (specified '1' as a general limit). Mind of a Child [SAB] (specified '0' as the limit of its effect). Violet Tremain [SAB] (specified '0' as the limit of her effect). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37931334...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes <Possibility of less than zero capacity> >Just card text. All capacity-reducing effects except one specified a >minimum capacity. And the one that didn't (Purity of the Beast [AH]) >was an action, so could not reduce the acting vampire to less than >zero. Just checking the card texts file, and it (well, both versions) says 1 pool. I'm assuming that's 1 blood. I have a vampire out with the following on them: Superior Protean Ankara Citadel, Turkey However, due to a severe battering, they are only at 1 capacity and 1 blood. I play Purity of the Beast, directing it at my prey's War Ghoul. Now, I get blocked by Violet Tremain (6/6), who has previously put a Fleshcraft on me, negating the stealth provided by the Purity of the Beast. So, we get into combat. First round, Violet and I exchange blows. I play Taste of Vitae, regaining the one blood I lost to her hand damage. I am on 1/1, she is on 5/6. I press, using Form of the Ghost. Second round, she hits me, I hit her. I play Taste of Vitae. I'm on 1/1, she's on 4/6. I press with Gleam of Red Eyes. Third round, my strike is Form of Mist. Combat ends. Violet's ability kicks in and I lose a capacity. Since I am at 0 blood, I would have to hunt normally (I'm not sure if this is possible mid-action, but I bring it up merely to negate it). However, the text on Form of Mist says, if I have the most up to date version: "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the action continues as if unblocked." The point about an untapped vampire having to hunt if at 0 blood, as I am, clearly cannot come into play since the Golden Rule of Cards requires Form of Mist to take over and force me to continue the Purity of the Beast action. I have no option over that. So, I hit the War Ghoul. At 0 capacity. However, I'm not entirely sure whether the Purity of the Beast action has now resolved or not. If it has, I should be at -1 capacity. (I can afford it, because the Citadel "pays" it for me.) If it hasn't, yet, and requires the combat to go through, I'll just throw down an Earth Meld for ease. I should still be at -1 capacity. Would that be possible, under the old rules? And can I claim "Stupid Interaction of Cards of the Month"? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <LkhJ0IAE...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes >Since I am at 0 blood, I would have to hunt normally (I'm not >sure if this is possible mid-action, but I bring it up merely to negate >it). Thinking about it, no, it shouldn't, since I am tapped. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <37931334...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> > writes > <Possibility of less than zero capacity> > >Just card text. All capacity-reducing effects except one specified a > >minimum capacity. And the one that didn't (Purity of the Beast [AH]) > >was an action, so could not reduce the acting vampire to less than > >zero. > > Just checking the card texts file, and it (well, both versions) says 1 > pool. I'm assuming that's 1 blood. Hmm. OK. I was mainly thinking about the fact that a zero-cap couldn't initiate the action, since he'd be empty and empty vampires cannot do anything except "hunt". I'll check on that blood/pool thing, though. > I have a [1-cap vamp attempts Purity of the Beast, blocked by > Violet who reduces his capacity to zero while he continues the action > with Form of Mist, so winds up at -1 capacity.] > Would that be possible, under the old rules? And can I claim "Stupid > Interaction of Cards of the Month"? Yeah :-). Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet, Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the skill cards get ousted. (With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1 capacity). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is > increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that > vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet, > Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the > skill cards get ousted. Hum? I thought it has been ruled that cards in play not under control of a Methuselah (but owned by him) are not burned when this Meth leaves the game. Am I wrong? It seems stupid and without reason why cards owned, but not controlled would be taken away. It disrupts the game. Btw, I don't know if a skill card played on a vamp controlled by another Methuselah, is then controlled by the controller of the vamp, but it seems logical and consequent. The vamp uses the skill, so you could as well assume the vamp "owns" the skill card. Otherwis the situation would be very awkward. ("I control the Protean card on your Lupo, but no problem, Lupo may make use of the Protean card.") > > (With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1 capacity). It's good that a vamp cannot go below one. On the other hand, in the RPG there are weak vamps (14th,15th gen.), so why not allow 0 cap. vamps that always must hunt but gain no blood? :) Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

carl.pi...@philips.com wrote: > In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > > Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is > > increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that > > vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet, > > Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the > > skill cards get ousted. > > Hum? I thought it has been ruled that cards in play not under control > of a Methuselah (but owned by him) are not burned when this Meth leaves > the game. Am I wrong? It seems stupid and without reason why cards > owned, but not controlled would be taken away. It disrupts the game. You are right. Note that I said the "Meth who *controls* the skill card" (emphasis added). Skill cards, like all master cards, are controlled by the Methuselah who played them. > Btw, I don't know if a skill card played on a vamp controlled by > another Methuselah, is then controlled by the controller of the vamp, > but it seems logical and consequent. The vamp uses the skill, so you It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played them. > could as well assume the vamp "owns" the skill card. Otherwis the > situation would be very awkward. ("I control the Protean card on your > Lupo, but no problem, Lupo may make use of the Protean card.") It is not awkward. You control the skill card. The skill card gives a discipline (and an extra capacity) to the vampire it is on. Similarly, if you play Haven Unconvered on a vampire, you control the Haven even though the vampire affected by the Haven is not (typically) one that you control. The specific example of a discipline card on a vampire which doesn't have the same controller as the discipline card was first addressed in RTR 17-OCT-1995. > > (With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1 > capacity). > > It's good that a vamp cannot go below one. On the other hand, in the > RPG there are weak vamps (14th,15th gen.), so why not allow 0 cap. > vamps that always must hunt but gain no blood? :) It was ruled that '1' was the better minimum. Especially since it matched the earliest minimum (and the only generic minimum) in print (Wrath of the Inner Circle). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <379738A5...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > carl.pi...@philips.com wrote: > > In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > (snipped) > > It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone > else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played them. Then I don't understand it again. In your example the controller of the skill card is ousted, and takes the skill cards with him. Otherwise the example would make no sense. Now, the golden Rules of card-ownership (I hope I don't make a mistake here) say that cards "acquired" by another Meth during the game stay with him for the rest of the game and are returned later. Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment, locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if I get it right, would you? IMO the skill cards should stay in play if played on a minion not controlled! Same goes for Blood Doll. [ quoted text not captured ]

carl.pi...@philips.com wrote in message <7n91eq$f0r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >In article <379738A5...@wizards.com>, > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> carl.pi...@philips.com wrote: >> > In article <379703A3...@wizards.com>, LSJ ><vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> > > >(snipped) > >> >> It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone >> else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played >them. > >Then I don't understand it again. In your example the controller of the >skill card is ousted, and takes the skill cards with him. Otherwise the >example would make no sense. Now, the golden Rules of card-ownership (I >hope I don't make a mistake here) say that cards "acquired" by another >Meth during the game stay with him for the rest of the game and are >returned later. >Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment, >locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if >I get it right, would you? Why do you feel the vampire should keep a gift vested to him by another Methuselah? For whatever insane mechanism made that Meth feel it would work to his benefit, s/he gave an opponents lackey a bit of something extra, obviously with the intent of having be to his own foul benefit. When a Meth leaves the Jyhad, it makes absolute sense that such vestitures should be taken, as well. Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

carl.pi...@philips.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > carl.pi...@philips.com wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > > > [when the controller of a skill card is ousted, the skill card > > > > is burned.] > > > [to have it remain in play would be logical.] > > It would be inconsistent. Master cards, whether "on" a minion someone > > else controls or not, are controlled by the Methuselah who played > > them. > > Then I don't understand it again. In your example the controller of the > skill card is ousted, and takes the skill cards with him. Otherwise the All cards controlled by the ousted player are burned. Including any skill cards she controls. Including skill cards she controls that are "on" vampires that she doesn't control. > example would make no sense. Now, the golden Rules of card-ownership (I > hope I don't make a mistake here) say that cards "acquired" by another > Meth during the game stay with him for the rest of the game and are > returned later. Yes. But you don't "acquire" a skill card that someone else plays on your vamp (any more that you "acquire" a Haven Uncovered played on one of your vamps). It is simply a card on your vamp. You don't control the card. If you actually steal/trade for control of the skill card (via Succubus Club, Ethan Locke, etc.), then you would have control of the card and it would not be burned when its owner (who is not the controller) is ousted. It would be returned to the owner when it was burned or when the game ends [Golden Rule of Card Ownership]. Master cards are controlled by the Methusleh who played them. Minion cards are controlled by the controller of the minion they are on (or, if they are not "on" a minion, they are controlled by the Meth. who played them). > Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment, > locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if > I get it right, would you? No inconsistency. You keep cards that you control. You "lose" cards that are controlled by an ousted Meth. (Technically, "you" don't lose them, since they would have to have been yours before you could lose them.) > IMO the skill cards should stay in play if played on a minion not > controlled! Same goes for Blood Doll. IMO, those Master cards are handled correctly now. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7n91eq$f0r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, carl.pi...@philips.com writes >Here lies the inconsitency: where you can keep stolen vamps, equipment, >locations, etc. you wouldn't get to keep skill cards on your vamps, if >I get it right, would you? The Control has never been transferred by card text. The player of a master card controls it until such time as control is transferred, by explicit card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > [Re: Purity of the Beast] > > Just checking the card texts file, and it (well, both versions) says 1 > > pool. I'm assuming that's 1 blood. > [...snip...] > I'll check on that blood/pool thing, though. The card as printed costs 1 blood. The spoiler list is in error. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37986D29...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes >The card as printed costs 1 blood. The spoiler list is in error. True. Neither of the AH spoiler lists I have, both from WotC, believe that Ankara Citadel exists, for instance. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > True. Neither of the AH spoiler lists I have, both from WotC, believe > that Ankara Citadel exists, for instance. > //Waaaaaay off topic//The WotC 'God Book' of AH cards i used to use at WotC UK had a picture of 'Vial of Methuselath blood' in it. There is at least one piece of artwork available for any new cards. //Back to your normal thread// matt