A few questions for whoever has the knowledge.

Anyway, here are a few questions that have been bothering me and my playing group. 1. The rules book addresses the results of two players being ousted in 1 turn, but if your prey and your prey's prey are ousted _simultaneously_ (like from a bleed vote), who gets the blood, the ante, and the victory points? 2. During your untap, are you _required_ to untap all your cards? (for instance, if you have Charnas the Imp on your butt, and you can't afford to lose more blood). 3. If you get two strikes, the first of which is a First Strike, when does the second strike take place, along with your opponent's first strike, or with his second strike? Am I making any sense? 4. Can Charming Lobby make a bloodhunt vote succeed? 5. How exactly does Charming Lobby work? I always thought that you use it to call a vote that does nothing, then call another one, which automatically succeeds. But after reading this newsgroup, it seems like you need 1 vampire to play Charming Lobby, 1 vampire to call a vote, and 1 vampire to cash in on the free vote. Effectively, you need to tap 3 vampires to get the full benefit of Charming Lobby. Is this right? Or does the vampire playing CL call a vote from your hand? 6. If you diablerize (an older vampire), and you don't have any skill cards left, what happens? Does the vampire get no new skill? If not, does he also not increase in generation? 7. If you diablerize (and you do have skill cards), if somebody wants to call a bloodhunt, does he have to do so immediately? Or can he wait until you get your skill card (effectively making you waste a skill card)? 8. Can you use the +1 stealth gained from superior Bonding to boost the stealth of an action other than bleeding? 9. If you use superior Eagles Sight, do you get the +1 intercept? (it seems not, looking at the card) -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James C. Clover | Programmers don't die, | with Disclamer; | | jcl...@netcom.com | they just GOSUB without | use Disclamer; | | Northrop-Grumman Corp | RETURN. | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

James C. Clover (jcl...@netcom.com) writes: > Anyway, here are a few questions that have been bothering me and my > playing group. Hello...I'll try answering some of them, but keep in mind that I haven't been privvy to some of the more ancient rulings by the DT... > 1. The rules book addresses the results of two players being ousted in 1 > turn, but if your prey and your prey's prey are ousted _simultaneously_ > (like from a bleed vote), who gets the blood, the ante, and the victory > points? You would get the 6 blood for ousting your prey, his ante and 1 victory point <for ousting your prey>. I don't think your prey would get anything since they were ousted... > 2. During your untap, are you _required_ to untap all your cards? (for > instance, if you have Charnas the Imp on your butt, and you can't afford > to lose more blood). Look in the book...the Untap Phase is the ONLY mandatory phase. I'm pretty sure that means you have to untap all of your cards... > 3. If you get two strikes, the first of which is a First Strike, when > does the second strike take place, along with your opponent's first > strike, or with his second strike? Am I making any sense? Yeah, I know what you mean...The first strike takes place at the same the opponents strike takes place. It's just RESOLVED before his strike. Thus, the order of strikes would be: 1-Both opponents' first strike <yours is resolved first, since it's a FS> 2-Both opponents' seconds strike. > 4. Can Charming Lobby make a bloodhunt vote succeed? It does say that the next vote succeeds, right ? <haven't read it in a while> Although the book says thta you can't influence bloodhunt votes with reaction/action modifier cards, I would say it depends on how your interpret Charming Lobby. > 5. How exactly does Charming Lobby work? I always thought that you use > it to call a vote that does nothing, then call another one, which > automatically succeeds. But after reading this newsgroup, it seems like > you need 1 vampire to play Charming Lobby, 1 vampire to call a vote, and > 1 vampire to cash in on the free vote. Effectively, you need to tap 3 > vampires to get the full benefit of Charming Lobby. Is this right? Or > does the vampire playing CL call a vote from your hand? Here's the way I see it...Vamp with Presence uses Charming Lobby, which lets him call the Charming Lobby vote. if you win, have another vamp call a vote that will automatically pass. > 6. If you diablerize (an older vampire), and you don't have any skill cards > left, what happens? Does the vampire get no new skill? If not, does he > also not increase in generation? Don't forget that you can look through your hand, your library and your ash pile for skills cards to give a diabolist... > 7. If you diablerize (and you do have skill cards), if somebody wants to > call a bloodhunt, does he have to do so immediately? Or can he wait until > you get your skill card (effectively making you waste a skill card)? I think you're supposed to play your skill card on the vampire, and then they call a bloodhunt. Mind you, if you diablerize again, you'll be able to use that skill card again, so... > 8. Can you use the +1 stealth gained from superior Bonding to boost the > stealth of an action other than bleeding? Don't think so. No one's never tried it in our group <although some inexperienced player tried to use the +1 stealth from an army of rats>, 'cause we assumed that you couldn't. > 9. If you use superior Eagles Sight, do you get the +1 intercept? (it > seems not, looking at the card) You don't. It just gives your Sport's bike/Raven Spy killing machines a chance to try and intercept anything around the table... -Paul-Andre

jcl...@netcom.com (James C. Clover) wrote: >1. The rules book addresses the results of two players being ousted in 1 >turn, but if your prey and your prey's prey are ousted _simultaneously_ >(like from a bleed vote), who gets the blood, the ante, and the victory >points? Peace James, Your prey gets 1 VP and its prey's ante. You get 1 VP, your prey's ante, and 6 pool. >2. During your untap, are you _required_ to untap all your cards? (for >instance, if you have Charnas the Imp on your butt, and you can't afford >to lose more blood). You must untap unless the card says otherwise. >3. If you get two strikes, the first of which is a First Strike, when >does the second strike take place, along with your opponent's first >strike, or with his second strike? Am I making any sense? Vamp A has two strikes, the first of which is FS. Vamp B has only one normal strike. It goes like this: A strikes FS; B strikes at normal speed (all vamps have now struck once); A strikes a second time. (as would B if it had another strike) >4. Can Charming Lobby make a bloodhunt vote succeed? Yes, if already in effect and a bloodhunt is the next vote called. CL could not be played during a bloodhunt vote. >5. How exactly does Charming Lobby work? I always thought that you use >it to call a vote that does nothing, then call another one, which >automatically succeeds. But after reading this newsgroup, it seems like >you need 1 vampire to play Charming Lobby, 1 vampire to call a vote, and >1 vampire to cash in on the free vote. Effectively, you need to tap 3 >vampires to get the full benefit of Charming Lobby. Is this right? Or >does the vampire playing CL call a vote from your hand? I'd explain this, but the official ruling makes absolutely no sense. >6. If you diablerize (an older vampire), and you don't have any skill cards >left, what happens? Does the vampire get no new skill? If not, does he >also not increase in generation? You gain the blood the other vamp had and any equipment, but get no skill card. No, you do not get "older" w/o a skill card. >7. If you diablerize (and you do have skill cards), if somebody wants to >call a bloodhunt, does he have to do so immediately? Or can he wait until >you get your skill card (effectively making you waste a skill card)? You must put the skill card on the diablerizing vamp BEFORE a bloodhunt can be called, that is: adding a skill card is an effect of diablerie and no time passes between the act of diablerie and all of its aftereffects (blood exchange, steal equip, gain skill). >8. Can you use the +1 stealth gained from superior Bonding to boost the >stealth of an action other than bleeding? No. >9. If you use superior Eagles Sight, do you get the +1 intercept? (it >seems not, looking at the card) No, you must use the inferior or superior part of the card exclusively. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

bt...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Beaulieu) writes: >James C. Clover (jcl...@netcom.com) writes: >> 1. The rules book addresses the results of two players being ousted in 1 >> turn, but if your prey and your prey's prey are ousted _simultaneously_ >> (like from a bleed vote), who gets the blood, the ante, and the victory >> points? >You would get the 6 blood for ousting your prey, his ante and 1 victory >point <for ousting your prey>. I don't think your prey would get anything >since they were ousted... Your Prey would still get a victory point and her Prey's Ante, as per the rulebook. >> 4. Can Charming Lobby make a bloodhunt vote succeed? >It does say that the next vote succeeds, right ? <haven't read it in a >while> Although the book says thta you can't influence bloodhunt votes >with reaction/action modifier cards, I would say it depends on how your >interpret Charming Lobby. The DT says that the auto-vote must be called by a (third) vampire. And since Bloodhunts aren't so called, the DT seems to indicate no. Note that this is probably just another example of the DT overstretching their rulings - but it *is* official. (more later...) >> 5. How exactly does Charming Lobby work? I always thought that you use >> it to call a vote that does nothing, then call another one, which >> automatically succeeds. But after reading this newsgroup, it seems like >> you need 1 vampire to play Charming Lobby, 1 vampire to call a vote, and >> 1 vampire to cash in on the free vote. Effectively, you need to tap 3 >> vampires to get the full benefit of Charming Lobby. Is this right? Or >> does the vampire playing CL call a vote from your hand? >Here's the way I see it...Vamp with Presence uses Charming Lobby, which >lets him call the Charming Lobby vote. if you win, have another vamp call >a vote that will automatically pass. Good reading. Perfect logic. But not official (surprise!): From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Revised Jyhad FAQ: 4/18/95 version Date: 18 Apr 1995 23:01:44 GMT Charming Lobby: 1) This card requires three vampires to be effective: one to play Charming Lobby, another to call the first vote, and the third to call the second vote. 2) The vote must be succesfully called for it to pass. >> 6. If you diablerize (an older vampire), and you don't have any skill cards >> left, what happens? Does the vampire get no new skill? If not, does he >> also not increase in generation? Correct. No new skill and no age increase. >> 7. If you diablerize (and you do have skill cards), if somebody wants to >> call a bloodhunt, does he have to do so immediately? Or can he wait until >> you get your skill card (effectively making you waste a skill card)? >I think you're supposed to play your skill card on the vampire, and then >they call a bloodhunt. Mind you, if you diablerize again, you'll be able >to use that skill card again, so... Correct. The bloodhunt cannot be called until the skill is gained, since the gaining is part of Diablerie, and the Bloodhunt vote comes after Diabl. >> 8. Can you use the +1 stealth gained from superior Bonding to boost the >> stealth of an action other than bleeding? From: aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.deckmaster Subject: NEW: Rulings summary for Jyhad Date: 9 Nov 1994 13:11:24 -0800 Bonding: The superior version cannot be used to increase the stealth of a non-bleed action; action modifiers which modify/replace bleed may only be used on bleed actions. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

>>> 8. Can you use the +1 stealth gained from superior Bonding to boost the >>> stealth of an action other than bleeding? > >Bonding: > The superior version cannot be used to increase the stealth of a > non-bleed action; action modifiers which modify/replace bleed may > only be used on bleed actions. > I don't understand this. It seems like all superior bonding does is increase a vampire's bleeding _potential_. It doesn't say "bleed at +1", it just says "+1 bleed" - just what it says under Ozmo's picture. So it seems that superior Bonding turns your vampire into Lucretia/Ozmo for a turn (effectively). What this vampire does with said stealth/bleed bonus is up to you. This issue is close to me because my friends have a lot of intercept, and my Ventrue decks need the +1 stealth to get votes off (seduction just doesn't cut it most of the time). -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James C. Clover | If debugging is the process of | My opinions | | jcl...@netcom.com | removing bugs, programming must | are my own... | | Northrop-Grumman Corp | be the process of putting them in. | etc. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

You can only play a bleed modifier if your minion is taking some kind of a bleed action. You can't use bleed modifiers uselessly, so can't use superior Bonding any time you feel like it. This is just like the rule that you simply can't play stealth or intercept if you don't need to. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >You can only play a bleed modifier if your minion is taking some kind of >a bleed action. You can't use bleed modifiers uselessly, so can't use >superior Bonding any time you feel like it. This is just like the rule >that you simply can't play stealth or intercept if you don't need to. Peace Tom, But not at all like the rule that you can burn Additional Strike cards for absolutely no benefit. How about some consistancy DT? Name one other place you can burn cards for no effect. [Note: I said "no effect", playing extra PA cards does have an effect. They give an extra vote each (even if you are already ahead 20 votes to 2). This is similar to playing Torn Signpost and Undead Strength to clout a vampire with zero blood on it (gotta watch for those Skin of Rock)] Come on, Tom, slap the DT around and reverse the Additional Strike ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >> >>You can only play a bleed modifier if your minion is taking some kind of >>a bleed action. You can't use bleed modifiers uselessly, so can't use >>superior Bonding any time you feel like it. This is just like the rule >>that you simply can't play stealth or intercept if you don't need to. >But not at all like the rule that you can burn Additional Strike cards >for absolutely no benefit. How about some consistancy DT? I hate to defend Tom -- well, not really -- but they're not really being inconsistent. They're reading the rules literally. The rules say something about extra strike cards. They say you can only get one extra strike from a card, which implies you can play more uselessly if you want to. I think they realize the sentence should have been that you can only _play_ one card giving you an extra strike, but they're sticking with mistakes when they aren't horrible, just like in Magic. The rules don't mention bleed AM cards, so they can say whatever they want about them without contradicting themselves, and saying you can only play them to bleed makes sense. The problem is their pig-headed insistance on standing by mis-stated rules. They apparently "fixed" the voting rules since the "other Meth" line _seems_ like a serious mis-statement when you first see it.

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >But not at all like the rule that you can burn Additional Strike cards >for absolutely no benefit. How about some consistancy DT?... It depends on how you define "consistency". Is "consistency" making sure that absolutely every rule and ruling is 100% consistent with each other and what makes sense, and damn the consequences? Or is "consistency" looking to see what the rulebook or card in question *actually says*, and ruling that way? This is a case of taking what the rulebook actually says, and going with that. Nobody likes errata, least of all us. Having additional strike cards work differently than the others is a little bit strange, yes, but we did not consider it to be worth errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>But not at all like the rule that you can burn Additional Strike cards >>for absolutely no benefit. How about some consistancy DT?... > >It depends on how you define "consistency". Is "consistency" making sure >that absolutely every rule and ruling is 100% consistent with each other >and what makes sense, and damn the consequences? Or is "consistency" >looking to see what the rulebook or card in question *actually says*, and >ruling that way? This is a case of taking what the rulebook actually Peace Tom, Ok, what about the Roetschreck ruling? Why not play the card as *actually written*? >says, and going with that. Nobody likes errata, least of all us. Having >additional strike cards work differently than the others is a little bit >strange, yes, but we did not consider it to be worth errata. I don't know of anyone who interpretted the phrasing of the rule on using only one Additional Strike card to mean that you could play six AS cards and only benefit from the first one. Did ANYONE reading this interpret this rule as the DTR has misruled? If the rules are meant to say that only one AS can be played, Tom, why not issue errata vice leaving the rules broken? I'd rather have working rules (with errata) than broken rules and no errata. [ quoted text not captured ]