Solange Erci wrote:
>
> Player P1 has a Tremere T and a Gargoyle G who is a Tremere slave.
> Player P2 has an untapped vampire B and an untapped vampire with
> Auspex A.
>
> On P1's turn, T takes an action with B successfully blocks. G untaps T
> to engage in combat with B in T's stead.
>
> At this point, it is my understanding that T is STILL the "acting
> minion". Is this correct?

Yes.

> G & B finish their combat. A plays Fast Reaction.
>
> Is Fast Reaction playable? If so, does A enter the Fast Reaction's
> combat with G or with T?

Not playable, since G is not the acting minion.

> It seems to me that the only printed card that changes the acting
> minion is Mask, and that the special Gargoyle slave ability never
> alters who the actor is. Furthermore, that Fast Reaction is intended
> as a card to punish a blocked actor (rather than whatever combat
> delegate the actor can manage to hide behind). Hence Fast Reaction
> should enable A to enter combat with T.
>
> The table disagreed :-/

The table is correct. Fast Reaction is only playable after a combat
between your blocking minion and someone else's acting minion.

> An analagous situation is an acting Gargoyle hiding behind a superior
> Conscripted Statue (I would contend that Fast Reactions invokes a
> combat with the Gargoyle).

Fast Reaction is not playable in that case, either, since the combat
involved the blocking vampire and a non-acting minion (the statue).
The acting minion never entered combat.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

spinney99 wrote:
>
> halcyan2@... (Halcyan 2)
> sez:
>
> > Yep. One of the most powerful abilities of Ex Nihilo + Meat Hook means you
can
> > potentially continue a combat forever (causing a timeout in a tourney or
lots
> > of mad people in a casual game)...
> >
> >
> > Halcyan 2
>
> would continuing to take your unproductive press now be another
> example of stalling under judges guide 162?

Yes.
Once it is determined that the combat "cycle" produces no result (no
change in game state), it would be stalling to continue the cycle.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Alex Broadhead wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Does the bleed modifier associated with Melange at superior work like
> the bleed modifier associated with superior Spying Mission?  That is,
> is using it/burning the Melange contingent on a successful bleed?  I
> used to think so, but I'm not sure why I did now.

No. You burn it to get +bleed just like you would play Threats
(although, of course, you can burn Melange before or after playing
other bleed modifiers, since it is not itself an action modifier).

> Melange [Sabbat, SW]
> Cardtype: Reaction
> Discipline: Auspex
> [aus] +1 intercept.
> [AUS] As above, and if you successfully block the acting minion, put
> this card on the acting minion; you still control this card. You may
> burn this card to get +1 bleed when this vampire bleeds the controller
> of the vampire with this card.
>
> As an example of where it makes a difference, Zoe bleeds my prey,
> whose Ozmo I have previously Melanged.  My prey announces 'no block',
> I burn the Melange for +1 bleed, and my prey then bounces the bleed to
> his prey.  I'm no longer bleeding the controller of the vampire with
> the Melange, but I was when I burned the Melange - does the +1 bleed
> still apply?

No. Like Foreshadowing of Destruction, the modifier is conditional.

> Or could I not burn the Melange until the bleed was
> actually successful against Ozmo's controller (which is to say that
> after I burn it there is no more opportunity to bounce a la Spying
> Mission)?

No.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Kulaid wrote:
> James Coupe <james@...> wrote:
> > >Question 3...  If you DI a card that was payed by a Masochism
> > >counter...
> >
> > Masochism doesn't pay for cards.  It reduces their cost, according to
> > the online texts.
> >
> > >  Does the Masochism counter reset?  Because DI only states
> > >blood or pool, nothing about counters...
> >
> > DI also says nothing about counters that aren't cost based.
> >
> > I can't see you getting them back.
>
> How about ravnos cache?  The master card says it's counters on it as
> blood...

The cost paid is retrieved.
In a perfect world, it should be simply "not paid" instead of "retrieved".

For instance, if you have a Realm of the Black Sun in play and Sudden your
prey's Short-Term Investment, you'll gain a pool under the cost retrieval
system.

But, that's card text for you.

I'll put this on the RT list, since player intuition would tend to run
contrary to the "retrieval" card text.

> If you DI a 'brother's blood' since the blood burn from it isn't the
> result of the card, but to heal damage or prevent destruction... Would
> he get that blood back?

No. He wouldn't burn the blood at all, so there's nothing to get back.

> Brings me to another question...  I had a cel/tham deck... I theft a
> blood brother, can he 'heal' that damage with the brother's blood?

What damage? Theft of Vitae does no damage.

> Can he heal more then the damage that was inflicted on him?

No. This is true in every instance of healing damage - not just Brother's Blood.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> I searched Google and was surprised that I couldn't find an answer to this
> question.  My apologies if I just missed it somewhere.

Nope. You're on new ground here, AFAIK. Congratulations. :-)

> Merril Molitor is empty and gets hit with a Flamethrower.  Which of these
> is correct?
>
> A) Merril must burn because he can only convert 1 agg to normal.  The
> normal damage (applied first) sends him to torpor where the aggravated
> damage burns him.
>
> B) Merril may choose to be sent to torpor by the first aggravated wound
> and then convert the second to normal, avoiding destruction.

A). Normal (including "as normal") damage is handled first.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Using the Bomb in combat hurts the bearer, as always, even when it is used
by a Ghoul Retainer. The CE text says "strike", but that is too restrictive.

Effective card text:
Weapon.
5R damage as a strike. If the ={bomb is used in combat, the bearer}= takes
5 damage as well. The minion with this weapon may burn a location as a (D)
action. Burn the Bomb after use.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

XZealot wrote:
> I researched Google and found that you can't play another UP if your
> opponent successfully presses to end combat.

Note: all references to UP are to the non-superior version:

Correct. UP requires you to be on your way to torpor, which you are not,
by the previously played UP.

> Can you play a Telepathic Tracking to continue?

Yes.

> How about another UP and a Telepathic Tracking to
> continue combat?

Can't play "another UP", as before.

> How about playing a Psyche when combat is ending due to agg damage?

No. Psyche! requires both minions to be ready.
Combat is ending "due to agg damage" means that one of the combatants
is no longer ready (which is how agg damage ends combat).

> or a UP and a Psyche at superior?

Yes. The UP'ed vampire will not fall into torpor from UP's effect
until after the Psyche! combat. But, and I'd overlooked this before,
the Psyche! combat ends as soon as it begins, since the formerly-UPed
vampire is no longer being propped up by the UP. Since he's no longer
ready, combat ends (unless he plays another UP for this new combat,
of course).

Pass the aspirin. :-)

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Sten During wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>> klav wrote:
>>> I take control of a vampire with fame controlled by my prey with
>>> spirit marionnete. I bleed then play daring the dawn to make the
>>> action unblocable by vampires.
>>>
>>> Can I give back the control of the vampire to my prey before sending
>>> him to torpeur so that my prey loses the 3 pools from the fame effet
>>> or do I send the vampire to torpor fist, take the 3 pools loss and
>>> then give the control back ? Can I choose the timing ?
>>
>> You choose.
>> Google: "spirit daring author:LSJ"
>
> Can he actually choose?
  >
> Daring the dawn says "after the ation is complete" and Spirit
> Marionette says "until the end of the next action". It would
> seem that the vampire is returned to his prey before it takes
> the aggravated damage (making it impossible to, for example,
> create the pooldifference needed to play Parity Shift as the
> next action if he, by a margin of 1, had the most pool on the
> table).
> A somewhat similar situation ought to make it illegal to play
> a Freak Drive with any spirited vampire as he no longer
> controls it.

Good point.
I was considering the "lose control" as an event to be ordered.

REVERSAL:

But it's not, as was established for Malkavian Dementia.
Instead, you have control until the end (as you note).
After the end, you don't have control.

Since the DtD damage occurs "after the end", it occurs
when you no longer have a choice.

Freak Drive, however, is played during the action, after the
resolution. Since it is still during the action, you still have
control.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote:
> REVERSAL:
>
> But it's not, as was established for Malkavian Dementia.
> Instead, you have control until the end (as you note).
> After the end, you don't have control.
>
> Since the DtD damage occurs "after the end", it occurs
> when you no longer have a choice.
>
> Freak Drive, however, is played during the action, after the
> resolution. Since it is still during the action, you still have
> control.

Sorry for the whiplash, but a very observant Stone has pointed
out that there's also a ruling that says the damage done is done
after resolution but still during the action (it isn't relegated
to the "between action" timing area).

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BE5446A.46D87B60%40white-wolf.com

The torporizing effect of Day Operation as well as the damaging
effects of Force of Will and Daring the Dawn occur during the
action, after resolution, before the action ends.

Freak Drive can be played before or after any of those effects,
since it occupies the same timing window.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9hpqcd%2438m%241%40taliesin.netcom.net.uk

Note that playing Freak Drive after would not be possible if the
effect waited until after the end of the action to occur.

REVERSAL (not quite a RE-REVERSAL, though, so read carefully):

So, you still don't have a choice when it comes to Spirit Marionette
and Daring the Dawn (or Force of Will), but the forced "option" I
indicated above is the wrong one - the damage occurs while you
still have control of the Marionette'ed vampire, before he goes back
home to his regular controller.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Rachel Brandywine's ability says "If Rachel is ready, you may
> place cards you discard during your discard phase in your
> library (shuffle afterward)."
>
> Do you draw a replacement card first, then shuffle the discarded
> card in, or do you shuffle the discarded card in and then draw
> a replacement card (possibly the same one)?

The latter.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> What happens when:
>
> You bring out Parmenides.  By card text your predator gets control
> of him until your next untap phase.
>
> Your prey then brings out Parmenides.  By card text you get control
> of him until your prey's next untap phase, but he also becomes
> contested.
>
> Who's contesting Parmenides?

You "have" your Prey's Parm. Your predator "has" your Parm. So you and
your Predator "are" contesting him. Assuming your Predator pays the
cost to contest (why would she? I don't know), the contest continues...

Until your next untap phase, when your Parm comes back to you and is
burned (contesting with yourself isn't possible, so the incoming copy
is burned).

This occurs before you have a chance to yield your prey's Parm., so,
when you actually get around to untapping your cards, Parm. (owned
by your prey) is no longer contested and is turned face up again, ready
to take actions on your turn (and will go merrily back to your prey
after your turn).

>  I found a message [LSJ 22-Jun-2001]
> that says this:
>
>>Reyda wrote:
>>>what happens when you transfer out two Parmenides during your influence
>>>phase  ? they go out simultaneously (illagal now) or one after another, thus
>>>making a contest with your predator ?
>>
>>You order them: Parmenides A comes out and goes to your predator. Parmenides
>>B comes out, goes to your predator, and is burned.
>>
>>Or you bring them both out (buring the second).
>
> The first part indicates to me that the control-transfer effect
> precedes the becoming-contested effect [...]

Correct.

> But I don't understand what the second part is saying.  Is there
> another option for how to handle this kind of situation available
> to the person bringing out the copies of Parmenides?

There is when *both* copies are your own and you attempt to influence
them both out in the same influence phase, yes - you can choose to
burn-via-self-contesting prior to the shift to your Predator, or
you can shift them to your Predator and have the second one
burn-via-self-contested after the shift.

> The way it seems to me it should go, based on the above, is:
>
> Your predator has Parmenides.  Your prey brings out another copy
> of Parmenides.  You get your prey's copy and both become contested.
  > Your predator either pays to contest Parmenides or yields.
> If he pays, do you still get that contested Parmenides back before your
> next untap phase?

Yes.

> If you don't get him back while he's contested,
> will his cardtext returning control ever kick in?

Moot.

> Hmm.  There are enough possible outcomes to iterate here (e.g. if
> control *is* returned while still contested, you'd burn the incoming
> copy that belonged originally to you, right?  but if not, then you'd
> get to choose whether or not to pay for your prey's copy...) that it
> doesn't seem worthwhile to do so before finding out what really
> happens there.  LSJ?  :-)

:-)

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> I think my brain may melt.  :-)

I was in the process of composing an answer to your post when I came across
a ruling from RTR 01-MAY-2000:

QUOTE:
In a similar vein, leaving play (via Contesting, Banishement, or
whatever) is ruled/errata'ed to break any lingering *temporary*
change-of-control effects (like Mind Rape, Malkavian Dementia, and
Temptation), but not any permanent change-of-control effects (like
Grave Robbing and Corruption).
END QUOTE.

Which renders much of this thread moot.

When Parmenides is contested, he is contested by his two permanent
controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
one not currently controlled by her is burned).

(Reverses the earlier ruling about contesting-shifting)

That should keep your brain on ice for a while. :-)

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe wrote:
> LSJ <vtesrep@...> writes:
> [switched order]
>>Seems simpler and more intuitive than the alternative. I'll put this
>>on the RT list for review.
> Noted, but I'll make a point or two anyway.
>
>>I'm inclined to follow the other "burn as it is played" effects (Sudden
>>Reversal, et al.) and say that self-contesting burns the incoming card
>>as it is played (or as it is incoming). For the usual, "as it is
>>played"
>>variations (e.g., not when retrieving a contested Parmenides from your
>>Predator when you have a second one from your Prey), the card that
>>was being played is burned with no effect.
>
> I'm not sure that would entirely deal with the question being posed.
>
> [Aside: Though the idea of incoming being burned before arriving makes a
>         certain amount of sense.  If they *did* arrive, from the
>         uncontrolled region, say, you'd have to contest them.  So having
>         it burn immediately makes sense.  In the interests of
>         conformity, having this happen before 'arrival' for self-
>         contestation makes sense.]
>
> Assuming you and I are playing against each other.  You control Jan
> Pieterzoon.  I decide to bring out *my* copy, because I think that'll be
> good for me - maybe your copy has a praxis seizure and I want to disrupt
> your vote lock.
>
> So, ignoring self-contesting, does *my* Jan Pieterzoon screw up our hand
> sizes as well, before going into contestation?  Or does he just turn up
> into the playing area, already contested?

The latter.

Similarly: If you play a second Elder Library to contest mine, you don't
draw up and then discard when the Library becomes contested - it is simply
contested (and I discard down).

REVERSAL:

This contradicts a former ruling concerning contesting the High Museum of
Art, Atlanta. That ruling drew precedent from targeting a to-be-contested
Rack, which is slightly different (i.e., cards are completely declared
when played, regardless of the fact that they may not have any effect due
to contesting or being Suddened or whatever). [LSJ 15-NOV-2000] Consider
this a reversal of that ruling.

> My reading of:
>
>         "If more than one copy of a unique card is brought into play,
>         that means control of the card is being contested."
>
> suggests that Jan *is* brought into play.  And *then* contested.

A parallel to the Sudden Reversal timing of "as that card is played"
suggests equally that, say, an Aggressive Tactics would have the same
effect. Or that a contested Elder Library would have the other controller
of the Elder Library discard and then draw back up with the second
Elder Library was Suddened.

But the current rulings are that the thing being burned as it is played
doesn't have that effect. That ruling base is being used as a precedent
to the parallel case of being contested as it is played (since both
result in the thing being put into play winding up out of play instead).

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Kevin M. wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesrep@...> wrote in message
>>When Parmenides is contested, he is contested by his two permanent
>>controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
>>one not currently controlled by her is burned).
>
> I assume that your contested Parmenides will sit there, contested and
> useless, in your Predator's play area, for his entire turn, and you will
> decide to pay (i.e. continue to contest w/your Prey) during *your* Untap
> phase, as per [4.1]?

Abby brings out the first Parmenides (P1).
She passes control of him to her predator, Denise.
Then Abby's prey, Brigette, plays a second Parmenides (P2).
Contest.
P2 is contested by Brigette.
P1 is contested, so Denise's temporary control is broken.
P1 is contested by Abby.

If instead Abby tried to bring out two copies of Parmenides
in the same influence phase:

Abby brings out the first Parmenides (P1).
She passes control of him to her predator, Denise.
Abby brings out the second Parmenides (P2).
P2 is contested by Abby.
P1 is contested, so Denise's temporary control is broken.
P1 is contested by Abby.

Since self-contesting is not allowed, one of the two
Parmenides is burned. Since both are simultaneously
"incoming" to Abby, she chooses which is burned. She
keeps the other face up. Effectively paying 4 pool and
4 transfers and a crypt draw to overcome Parmenides'
special "shift control" effect.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Jozxyqk wrote:
> Metropolis <doros@...> wrote:
>
>>I am confused,
>
>
>>Minion A strikes B and during strike resolution, B will go to torpor.
>
>>Must A allow be to play undead persitence before declaring amaranth or is
>>this some sort of bizare speed of play step?

Neither.
If A wants to play Amaranth and B wants to play Undead Persistence at the
same time, the standard rules are used to resolve the situation.
[1.6.1.6]

>>I understand that is A asks are you going to torpor, B can't say yes and
>>then respond with the undead persistence.
>
> [IANLSJ] The way I see it, to be consistent with other rules, the acting
> minion always gets first opportunity to play cards.  So if the acting minion
> is the one going to torpor, he can play UP.  If the acting minion is the one
> who performed the strike, he can play Amaranth.

Correct.

Amaranth:
Only usable when the opposing vampire should go to torpor

Undead Persistence:
Only usable when this vampire should go into torpor.

At some point, in order to play Amaranth or in order to play Undead Persistence,
vampire B meets the "should go to torpor" requirement.

Either effect (Amaranth or Undead Persistence) can be played at that time
(card text).

If Amaranth is played, Undead Persistence cannot be (B's no longer of the
"should go to torpor" variety).

If Undead Persistence is played, Amaranth cannot be (likewise).

By 1.6.1.6, the acting minion gets first chance to play.

> Additional question:  Two vampires knock each other into torpor.
> One of them plays UP.  Can he immediately play Amaranth, or is it too late?

He can, if he's acting.
If his opponent is acting, by 1.6.1.6, the opponent gets a chance to
respond to the Undead Persistence with one of his own before passing the
opportunity to play back to the non-acting combatant.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> So say I have a vampire in torpor with a [master: discipline] card on him.
>
> I send a second vampire of mine to go and diablerize the first vampire. The
> second vampire is not burned in the blood hunt[*]. Can I then take the skill
> card that was on the first vampire that may or may not be in the ash heap
> yet and place it on the second vampire?

The discipline card from the victim is placed in the ash heap before you
search your hand/library/ash heap for a Discipline card. You are free to
retrieve the newly placed Discipline card for the young diablerist.
[6.5.5]

[*] Note that this happens *before* determining whether or not the young
diablerist is burned in the blood hunt. [6.5.5]

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Ramsteiner wrote:
> I would like some clarification to the below situation.
>
> During a recent tournament my grand predator played a Parity Shift and
> then a Seduction (as it's card text states it is only usable when the
> action is announced).  My predator wanted to play a Direct
> Intervention to cancel the Parity Shift action.  However, it's card
> text states that it cancels a card as it is played.
>
> It was ruled that the DI could only cancel the Seduction as it was the
> last card played as it is required to be played at the time the action
> is played.  None of us at the tournament were completely comfortable
> with the decision as it gave the appearance that an Action could be
> "masked" by an Action Modifier that could only be played at the time
> when the action was announced.
>
> Could the DI have canceled the PS or was it doomed to only being able
> to cancel the Seduction?

It can.

"As card is played" occurs before "as action is announced".

The DI would be played before Seduction could be.

The acting minion jumped the gun, so the situation should be
undone (pick up the Seduction, return it to hand, return card
drawn to replace Seduction to the library and, if no one has
peeked at the library to know that Seduction was there, shuffle
the library).

Then continue with the DI being played on the Parity Shift.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Jozxyqk wrote:
> How does Betrayer interact with the Advanced rule?
>
> If I have the original Lucita in my uncontrolled region, and my
> prey has the Advanced Lucita in play, are they considered the same
> vampire for this purpose?

They are the same vampire for all purposes that would consider two
copies of "original" Lucita the same vampire, yes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

vermillian wrote:
>1b.) Jeremy MacNeil (jm) is in play, and I've got an advanced jm (jm+)
>in my uncontrolled region, that's brainwashed. Can I still 'merge' jm+
>with jm? (my guess is yes).

Yes. Brainwash only prevents using transfers to move counters to or from
the target.

>1a.) What if the jm+ had one blood counter on it... That is, can I
>still merge jm+ with one blood counter and a brainwash(text of
>brainwash reads: "No transfers can be used to move blood to or from
>that vampire" Merging would remove the blood counter off of that
>vampire, and it requires transfers) (my guess, yes)

Yes. Merging is not using transfers to move blood to or from the target.

>2.) JM is in play, JM+ is merged onto JM. JM merged (JMm) is now
>banished. What's the condition of the vampire in my uncontrolled
>region? (ie: what is its capacity, what is its clan, and sect) (my
>answer would be, that its based off of the jm+ copy)

Correct.

>3.) JM is in play. JM gets a skill card (say serpentis). JM+ is merged
>onto JM. Does JMm have the serpentis skill card? (my guess yes)

Yes. The cards on the controlled vampire remain.

>4.) JM in play, becomes the Prince of Rome with Praxis Seizure: Rome.
>JM's capacity is increased by one. JM+ is merged onto JM. Do we now
>ignore the capacity increase of the base and the title of the base?
>(my guess, yes)

The capacity increase has always only applied while the vampire met
the clan requirement and held the title. If he doesn't (by merge,
by CI, losing the title, or whatever) then the capacity bonus doesn't
apply. Since he's no longer a prince, he loses the capacity bonus.

>5.) JM in play, JM+ merged. JMm gets banished. Then JMm gets Memory's
>Fading Glimpse. What's up? (My guess, you discard (place in the ash
>heap) the copy of JM and JM+ gets placed on the bottom of your crypt).

Move both copies to the bottom of your crypt (advanced copy on the
bottom). They are then treated as separate vampire cards once again.


--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

salem wrote:
> superior Fata Amria reads:
>
> CHI] Play after a (D) action directed at you (or something you
> control) is successful. Put Fata Amria on the acting vampire. The
> vampire with Fata Amria cannot play cards that require Disciplines at
> the superior level. The vampire with Fata Amria may burn this card
> during his or her untap phase instead of untapping.
>
> I presume it is played after the resolution of the action?

Yes.

> For example, if the action is to enter combat with one of your
> minions, you would wait until after the combat before playing this
> card?

Yes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Petri Wessman wrote:
> So, case by case: Vampire A is acting, Vampire B is a blocking
> !Salubri.
>
> a) A strikes with (some) combat ends, B strikes with BA. Does the BA
> effect still kick in? (I assume yes, the first CE should not cancel
> the queued combat)

Correct.

> b) A strikes hands, B strikes BA. A plays Psyche!. What happens? (two
> possibilities: either Psyche cancels the queued combat, or the BA
> effect happens after the combat resolves. Not sure on this one.)

Psyche! cannot be played, since the already-resolved BA has queued
a combat. [RTR 01-MAY-2002]

> c) A strikes hands, B strikes BA. A plays Telepathic Tracking. What
> happens? (I think there was a ruling that TT cancels any queued
> combats, but not sure...)

Correct. [RTR 01-MAY-2002]

> And while we're on it, what happens if:
>
> d) A !Salubri is acting and in combat with, say, a Gangrel. !Salubri
> plays BA, Gangrel flashes claws and plays Rotschrek. What happens now?
> (again, not sure, though I suspect that Rotschrek wins and cancels the
> BA effect).

Rötschreck wins by the fact that it resolves before you get to strike
resolution (and therefore the BA never resolves), yes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

salem wrote:
> just wondering,
>
> when using hrothulf's 'burn edge to enter combat ... as a (D) action'
> ability, do you burn the edge for the attempt, or only if the action
> is successfull (like a blood cost, etc)?

Only if successful.

As an action, he can burn the edge to enter combat.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

salem wrote:
>>emmitsvenson@... (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message
news:<75bdf7ed.0305180720.222202e5@...>...
>>>If Diversion is the combat card put on a Shadow Court Satyr, can the
>>>Satyr use it in combat? (Diversion requires an Anarch)
> it can't use reality mirror, because that requires a malk.
>
> why would it be able to use a card that requires an anarch?

He cannot, correct.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

As always, errata and reversals of previous rulings do not go into effect for
constructed deck tournaments until 30 days (i.e., until June 18, 2003).

Reversals in this RTR:
Alternate hunt actions.
Mask of a Thousand Faces.


RULINGS
=======

Contesting: The incoming contested card has no effect prior to being contested.
That is, if you contest an Elder Library, you don't draw up to your new Elder
Library hand size and then discard when the Library becomes contested - it is
simply contested. Likewise contesting Jan Pieterzoon doesn't cycle a card from
each player's hand.

End of round: Things that are played "at the end of round" (Disarm, Taste of
Vitae, etc.) are played after presses are handled (in the "after presses are
handled" phase, much like Torn Signpost is played in the "before maneuvers are
handled" phase).

Alternate Hunt Actions (REVERSAL): Previously, modifications to the amount
gained by special hunt actions (Legacy of Caine, Week of Nightmares, etc.) could
not be made, but other modifications (to stealth, say) were allowed. The
restriction against modifying the amount is now dropped. Any hunt modification
(Aaron's Razor, Hesha, etc.) is allowed on special hunts (Legacy of Caine, Week
of Nightmares, etc.), following card text. Note that card text on Festivo dello
Estinto and Inbase Discotek explicitly move the additional blood from the blood
bank (rather than from the new, non-default, target of the hunt).

Specifically
Aaron's Feeding Razor, Amadeo, Hesha Ruhadze, Hungry Coyote, Succulent Vitae
(superior), Tainted Vitae move additional blood, if available, from the source
to the hunter.
Festivo dello Estinto the successful hunter, after gaining blood from whatever
source, fills up with blood from the blood bank.
Foul Blood the hunter takes 1 less blood from the source.
Immaculate Vitae (superior), Masquerade Endangered, Vampiric Disease no blood is
moved from the source.
Inbase Discotek, Frankfurt the hunter, after gaining a blood from whatever
source, gains a blood from the blood bank.

Rachel Brandywine: You activate her ability at the end of the discard phase,
after discarding your card(s). That is discard (to the ash heap), draw back to
hand size (from the library), then move the cards you just discarded from the
ash heap to the library and shuffle. If you exhaust your library while trying to
draw back up to your hand size in the middle, then you can continue to draw back
up to your hand size after adding the new cards to your library, as normal.

Mask of a Thousand Faces (REVERSAL): All effects that had been applied to the
action or the acting minion carry over as if they had been applied with the
Masker as the acting minion. The standing rule that "Mask cannot be used to mask
an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if
any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been
played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that
has already been spent.)" still applies, and it applies to other effects as
well. So if Backways is tapped to give the acting Gangrel a stealth, then
non-Gangrel cannot mask the action. If Redirection is used at inferior by a 7
capacity vampire, then vampires with capacity of 7 or more cannot mask the
action (since they are not
younger than the reacting vampire). And so on.

Draba or Veiled Sight vs. Mask of a Thousand Faces (REVERSAL): The stealth
reduction of Draba and Veiled Sight carries over at the same level as before the
mask. The two effects can be treated as equivalent to "-X stealth" where X is
(was) the current amount of stealth of the action, with the X unchanged by the
play of the mask.


ERRATA
======

Canceling cards and retrieving costs: Cards that cancel other cards as they are
played and retrieve the cost (resulting in a loss as the cost is paid and then a
gain as the cost is retrieved) instead cancel the card and nullify the cost (no
cost is paid for the canceled card). The Anarchs version of Sudden Reversal has
the new "(no cost is paid)" wording, and other cancel cards are to be handled
similarly. Those other cards are Contingency Planning, Denial of Aphrodite's
Favor, Direct Intervention, Iron Heart, The Jones, and Rewind Time.

Angelica, The Canonicus: Can only use her ability once each action (when
attempting to block).

Archon/Templar: These cards are placed on the target if the referendum passes.
The vampire with the card gets the abilities.  The action given by the cards in
play cannot be repeated by that minion twice in the same turn, by the base rules
on repeating actions. The card is burned if the ability is removed (via the
referendum given in card text). If the vampire has two Archon/Templar cards, he
can take the action allowed by one and, if he untaps, then take the action
allowed by the other.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Stone wrote:
> Vampire A has Aching Beauty. Vampire B has no Aching Beauty.
>
> A bleeds.
>
> 1/ Can B Mask the action (Mask of 1000 Faces) before the block, since AB
> isn't an "applied" effect like the effect of Backways would be ?

Yes.

> 2/ Can B Mask the action after the block and the pool loss induced by the
> Aching Beauty? Is the pool loss considered an applied effect?

B cannot mask once the pool loss effect is applied.

Similarly, once a vampire attempts to block an Archon, the Archon's effect
is activated (the vampire pays 1 blood to attempt to block), so the action
cannot be masked away from that archon.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Halcyan 2 wrote:
>>I assume if a tournament game times out, and you are still alive, you
>>gain 1.5 VP's?  Just to clarify for myself.
> Correct.

Correct.

> Note however that you do not get the Gambit Accepted VP back if you
> successfully withdraw (since the card leaves play at that time).

Correct. It would probably be better to award the predator the
gambit VP on your withdrawal, to maintain the zero-sumness of
the game. I'll put it on the RT list, but given the prevalence of
withdrawing (and the chances of wanting to do so after playing
Gambit Accepted), it may not rise to the errata level.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Halcyan 2 wrote:
  > By the way, speaking of that, can someone please remind me what happens if
the
  > directedness of a minion changes?

You mean "directedness of an action changes", yes?

  > A. During my turn, using Madness Network my prey attempts to perform an
action
  > targeting another of his vampires with a Secure Haven (but since he controls
  > the vamp, it's undirected). However, I have a Temptation on that vampire and
  > during the action, I burn all of the counters to take control of that
vampire.
  > Since I now control the vampire, the action is now directed. Does this cause
  > the action to immediately fail (since the vampire is now not affected by the
  > action)?

It fizzles, yes. [LSJ 25-JUL-2002]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D3FE40B.8B58C24C%40white-wolf.com

  > And similarly, would other effects based on actions directed at that
  > vampire suddenly trigger in such a situation (i.e. Moncada, Highway Haven,
  > etc.)?

If the action is no longer valid (the actor is prohibited from taking the
action or the target isn't a valid target for the action or whatever), then
it fizzles.

  > B. Also, can you remind me on what happens when the Methusaleh who the action
  > is directed against changes (but not the actual target)? During my minion
  > phase, Methusaleh B directs an action using Madness Network at Smudge
  > controlled by Methusaleh C. Methusaleh C declines to block. I burn my
  > Temptation counters to gain control of Smudge (so now the action is directed
at
  > me). Do I now have a chance to block? Does it matter whether or not I had
  > officially declined to block previously?

There's a new round of "who may block" in this case as well, since the target
Methuselah has changed. (New ruling)

  > C. Similarly situation as above. But now, during my minion phase, Methusaleh
B
  > uses Madness Network to direct an action at Methusaleh C's Smudge and
  > Methusaleh C attempts to block. What happens if I take control of Smudge now?
  > Does the combat occur? Or is it canceled since the block would no longer be
  > legal?

The latter. There is no combat (in Smudge's case) without a successful block.
If you wait until the block succeeds, however, off to combat he goes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

salem wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2003 20:38:07 -0700, messier37@... (Doug) scrawled:
>>If the Nosferatu Bestial is in play and gets superior Animalism can he
>>use his special to employ a Raptor (or any other suitable retainer) at
>>superior?  Someone in my play group argues that because it doesn't
>>specifically state that it can be employed at ANI that it only works
>>at inferior.
>
> it says it _has_ basic animalism. it doesn't say that the employing of
> the retainer is at basic animalism, it just says _requires_ animalism,
> with no mention of what level.
> it does, however, mention that the Bestial must meet the requirments
> of the card. So if Bestial has superior animalism, then it can employ
> retainers that require superior animalism.

Correct.

> same goes for muricia's call at inferior animalism. you can still
> employ the retainer you find in your library at superior animalism, if
> you have it.

Correct.

>>Nosferatu Bestial [Anarchs:R]
>>Cardtype:  Action
>>
>>Clan:  Nosferatu
>>
>>Cost:  1 pool
>>
>>+1 stealth action. Unique.
>>Put this card into play. This card represents a unique Nosferatu
>>vampire with 2 capacity and basic Animalism. The Bestial cannot act
>>except to hunt, cannot cast votes and cannot have equipment. During
>>your untap phase, this Bestial may employ a retainer from your hand
>>that requires Animalism (he or she must meet the requirements of the
>>card). Pay the cost as normal. This is not an action and cannot be
>>blocked.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Tusk (the advanced version) can only use his special ability once each action
(errata).

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Charles Lechasseur wrote:
> In article <5rdsgvgnka2fpdfm3h1n1t2eu27hm0vplp@...>, The Lasombra
> <TheLasombra@...> wrote:
>>On 11 Jul 2003 04:00:44 GMT, halcyan2@... (Halcyan 2) wrote:

[If base Lazarus seizes praxis and is then merged with advanced Lazarus...]

>>>Since the Advanced text takes precedence, he'd go from Prince to
>>>Primogen, right?
>>
>>Right.
>
> i'm just curious: why is that? i would understand if Lazarus (basic) had a
> title by card text, but this is not the case. a Praxis Seizure card reads
> like this:
>
> "Successful {referendum} means the acting vampire is declared Prince of
> Amsterdam. This could lead to a contested title."
>
> so the vampire becomes Prince, but it affects his/her card text? how come
> that wasn't the case with Archon before they fixed the "loophole"? i
> would've thought that the vampire would become Prince and would remember
> that once merged (it is, after all, the same vampire after the merge).

Merging a vampire card with a title onto your vampire has the effect of
that vampire gaining that title (and losing any previous title he had).

Normally, base Laz would simply lose his primogen title as he gains
advanced Laz's primogen title. But in this case, since base Laz had
gained a prince title, he'd lose the prince title as he gained the
primogen title.

The merging itself won't clobber any existing effect, no. If the
merging doesn't grant a new title, then there's no effect that will
clobber the existing title (although the merge might change the
vampire's sect, sending the title into remission for a while).

But if the merge results in a title gain, the standard rules for
gaining titles are followed.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@...) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/