Red List, Trophy and Anathema

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Just doing a reality-check.

Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does
opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns
the vamp, but want to be sure.

Similar question goes for all other cards/combinations creating the same
situation, eg Red List vamp at zero blood, opponent has Ghoul Retainer
and a Flamethrower and range is long, choses strike 'wave' in order to
get around a possible Strike: Dodge.

Sten During

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Sten During wrote:
> Just doing a reality-check.
>
> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does
> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns
> the vamp, but want to be sure.

If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire
gets Trophied.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) 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/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> Sten During wrote:
>
>> Just doing a reality-check.
>>
>> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does
>> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns
>> the vamp, but want to be sure.
>
>
> If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire
> gets Trophied.
>
Ah, ok. I think the Trophy rule may need a clarification then as it
currently demands that a vampire does the burning.

Eg, current text and hypothetical Sanguinius combat card only playable
by a Circle member other than the one in combat: Inflict 2 aggravated
damage, would have me try moving the Trophy to the non-combatant
Blood Brother doing the burning.

Sten During

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Sten During" <yappo@netg.se> wrote in message news:36uam1F54fjtvU1@individual.net...
> LSJ wrote:
> > Sten During wrote:
> >
> >> Just doing a reality-check.
> >>
> >> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does
> >> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns
> >> the vamp, but want to be sure.
> >
> >
> > If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire
> > gets Trophied.
> >
> Ah, ok. I think the Trophy rule may need a clarification then as it
> currently demands that a vampire does the burning.

That's what that means, in combat.

If you're in combat and your opponent burns, you burned your opponent
in combat. Any other meaning is far too messy/ambiguous.

> Eg, current text and hypothetical Sanguinius combat card only playable
> by a Circle member other than the one in combat: Inflict 2 aggravated
> damage, would have me try moving the Trophy to the non-combatant
> Blood Brother doing the burning.

Since he's not "in combat", he wouldn't get it.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:23:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:

>Sten During wrote:
>> Just doing a reality-check.
>>
>> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does
>> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns
>> the vamp, but want to be sure.
>
>If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire
>gets Trophied.

Additionally, it has been said that a trophy gained through searching
the library/hand/ash heap is put at the vampire at the same time
window a diablerist would gain a skill card. I've never seen anyone
play Sudden Reversal on that skill - probably because it's not worth
it - but anyway, could a player use Sudden on a trophy retrieved this
way?

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:ej7k019bgpbcdrnmbv587viqqdber9vh44@4ax.com...
> Additionally, it has been said that a trophy gained through searching
> the library/hand/ash heap is put at the vampire at the same time
> window a diablerist would gain a skill card. I've never seen anyone
> play Sudden Reversal on that skill - probably because it's not worth
> it - but anyway, could a player use Sudden on a trophy retrieved this
> way?


No. Sudden can only be played on cards played in the normal
fashion.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:

>
> That's what that means, in combat.

Ah, I read the sentence differently. "burns a minion in combat" as
that the minion being burned was "in combat", not that the one doing
the burning had to be "in combat" as well, but yes, the sentence
does read both ways.

Sten During

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but
> reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth
> do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos.
>

Actually, it's more techniweird than that. Diablerize without combat as an
acting minion and you get the trophy. Diablerize without combat while the
blocking minion and you don't get the trophy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:06:05 -0500, "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com>
wrote:

>"Sten During" <yappo@netg.se> wrote in message news:36uam1F54fjtvU1@individual.net...
>> LSJ wrote:
>> > Sten During wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just doing a reality-check.
>> >>
>> >> Red List vamp with Anathema is reduced to zero blood in combat. Does
>> >> opponent get a Trophy? I guess no as Anathema rather than opponent burns
>> >> the vamp, but want to be sure.
>> >
>> >
>> > If anything burns the opposing Red Lister in combat, the opposing vampire
>> > gets Trophied.
>> >
>> Ah, ok. I think the Trophy rule may need a clarification then as it
>> currently demands that a vampire does the burning.
>
>That's what that means, in combat.
>
>If you're in combat and your opponent burns, you burned your opponent
>in combat. Any other meaning is far too messy/ambiguous.

Not to sound like a thicky, if a RedList w/THA and 0 blood plays
Superior Burst of Sunlight, and I played a Dodge, I get a trophy?

It's unlikely to happen if I do get a trophy, but if I don't, I can
see it being a possibility, as Anti-Trophy tactics.

As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act
of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would
Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing
issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not
gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd
figure I'd ask.

Morgan Vening

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Morgan Vening" <morgan@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:grnk011ocj1p68e8t07c85fals1b3ul1mo@4ax.com...
> Not to sound like a thicky, if a RedList w/THA and 0 blood plays
> Superior Burst of Sunlight, and I played a Dodge, I get a trophy?

If he burns in the combat, yeah.

> As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act
> of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would
> Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing
> issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not
> gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd
> figure I'd ask.

Amaranth permits a trophy. It is in-combat diablerie.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Morgan Vening wrote:
> As an additional, when exactly does wounding happen? As the last act
> of Combat, or a state-based effect after combat? Namely, would
> Amaranth still permit a Trophy? I'd think yes, but some of the timing
> issues have had me scratching my head (Anathema/Cryptic Mission not
> gaining it, or Anathema/Amaranth or Anathema/Agg/Decapitate), that I'd
> figure I'd ask.

Nit: Cryptic Mission doesn't trigger Anathema. Not in combat.

Amaranth and (superior) Decapitate would trigger it; they're combat
cards, ergo, you have to be in combat to play them.

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule
> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?"
>
> How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from
> block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie,
they
> all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled
out
> to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out?

I don't think it was designed that way. Diablerie is included among the
possible (D) actions or combat effects which allow you to burn an
opposing minion (and gain a trophy), as opposed to starting with
diablerie gaining you a trophy and then saying "Oh, incidentally, other
(D) actions and combat burning also allow you to get trophies."

In other words, the rule could have had three cases (diablerie, burn in
combat, burn as (D) action). Instead it has two (burn in combat, burn
as (D) action). The idea was probably that hunting down and destroying
a Red List minion or defeating them in glorious combat were the ways to
gain trophies, and sometimes this includes diablerie.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
>
> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule
> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?"
>
> How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from
> block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie,
they
> all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled
out
> to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out?

Perhaps for reasons of game balance.

> The steps for Diablerie are basically as follows:
>
> *Gain Blood & Equipment
> *Gain Capacity (where apropriate1)
> *Gain Trophies (where apropriate2)
> *Blood Hunt
>
> Why does "where apropriate2" read "if a Red List Minion was
dialberized
> via Combat or (D) action" and not "if a Red List Minion was
diablerized."
>
> What makes block&diablerize so different?

First and foremost, you need to remember that this is a _card game_,
and not 'a roleplaying game played with cards'. Decisions are made
first based on the card-game effects and then (to a much lesser extent)
on how the semi-arbitrary flavor of the cards holds up to role-playing
justifications.

If you need a roleplaying justification, think of it like this: if you
happen to stumble across a momentarily-vulnerable Red List minion
totally by accident and eat him, no elder is going to give you the same
respect as if you had set out to hunt him down where he lives and taken
him out as a deliberate course of action and/or bested him in single
combat.

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Why not "duh, I should've read it" (or, if "why?" is appropriate,
> why not "uh, why?" to the Freak Drive after block non-allowance)?
>

I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule
designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?"

How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from
block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie, they
all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled out
to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out?

The steps for Diablerie are basically as follows:

*Gain Blood & Equipment
*Gain Capacity (where apropriate1)
*Gain Trophies (where apropriate2)
*Blood Hunt

Why does "where apropriate2" read "if a Red List Minion was dialberized
via Combat or (D) action" and not "if a Red List Minion was diablerized."

What makes block&diablerize so different?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <etherial@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:20050210085354.V51060@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
> > Why not "duh, I should've read it" (or, if "why?" is appropriate,
> > why not "uh, why?" to the Freak Drive after block non-allowance)?
> >
>
> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule
> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?"

No, I'm not.

The parallel between Freak Drive and the Trophy Rule with
regards to diablerie incorporates design. Perhaps someone
is missing that part of the parallel, though.

> How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different from
> block&combat&diablerize and (D)iablerize? They all involve Diablerie, they
> all follow the exact same steps for Diablerie EXCEPT one was singled out
> to not invoke the Trophy Rule. Why was that Diablerie Singled Out?

Combat&Diablerize is handled via the combat part, without regard
to the action, so hinging "block&" on that aspect is disingenuous.
Rush&combat&diablerize, Act&getblocked&combat&diablerize,
rush&combat&psyche!&combat&diablerize,
act&getblocked&combat&hiddenlurker&combat&diablerize, etc. are all
just different ways of saying "Amaranth is one of the ways to burn
a vampire in combat; burning a Red List vampire in combat yields
a Trophy opportunity."

Parallel:
How was block&diablerize determined to be sufficiently different
from (D)iablerize for Freak Drive? (Reducing the concept of "act"
to just the special case of diablerie, similar (parallel) to above).

That is, what is the backstory justification for allowing Freak
after an action but not after a block?

> The steps for Diablerie are basically as follows:
>
> *Gain Blood & Equipment
> *Gain Capacity (where apropriate1)
> *Gain Trophies (where apropriate2)
> *Blood Hunt
>
> Why does "where apropriate2" read "if a Red List Minion was dialberized
> via Combat or (D) action" and not "if a Red List Minion was diablerized."
>
> What makes block&diablerize so different?

It isn't burning the RL as a (D) action or in combat.

See also "What make block&diablerize so different from (D)iablerize
where Freak Drive is concerned?"

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
>>Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but
>>reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth
>>do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos.
>>
>
>
> Actually, it's more techniweird than that. Diablerize without combat as an
> acting minion and you get the trophy. Diablerize without combat while the
> blocking minion and you don't get the trophy.

How is "follow rules text as written" techiweird?

It seems that it would be weirder to "apply" WoD sensibilities on
the fly as you go along.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) 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/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:
: Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
:>>Right, but why does reducing him to zero blood in combat generate, but
:>>reducing him not in combat, not? Why does diablerizing with Amaranth
:>>do it, but diablerizing without combat, not? Little techniwierdos.
:>
:> Actually, it's more techniweird than that. Diablerize without combat as an
:> acting minion and you get the trophy. Diablerize without combat while the
:> blocking minion and you don't get the trophy.

: How is "follow rules text as written" techiweird?
: It seems that it would be weirder to "apply" WoD sensibilities on
: the fly as you go along.

Nothing wrong with following the rules as they're written. Mostly that's
all good when it comes to Jyhad.

It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when
a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of
a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be
different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by
taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion?

I can quite imagine it though..

"So, you ate a Red List?"
"Yeah, I was just passing by when he.."
"Oh, just passing by and seizing the moment to get some snack, eh?"
"Well.. Uh.. I got keen eyes and.."
"Ahem. In that case we must apply the Thorns Red List Eating Rule
Revision from 1604. Accidental 'just passing by' does not get you
brownie points, dude."
"But.. It was a Red List, after all and I.."
"Sorry. Had you snuck up into his lair in secrecy and commited this
horrible deed (indeed, I must unfortunately vote against you the Blood
Hunt, too), it would be a different thing."
"Hey now.."
"Case closed. Burning chambers are the door to your left. Next!"

//T

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufilu$cj9$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when
> a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of
> a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be
> different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by
> taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion?


Because one is an action.

Why can you Freak to untap after one but not the other?

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1108050316.106978.291640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If you need a roleplaying justification, think of it like this: if you
> happen to stumble across a momentarily-vulnerable Red List minion
> totally by accident and eat him, no elder is going to give you the same
> respect as if you had set out to hunt him down where he lives and taken
> him out as a deliberate course of action and/or bested him in single
> combat.


And remember that in the RPG, diablerizing a Red List gets you
only one reward: a place on the Red List yourself.

Sending a Red List to Final Death is OK. Taking his powerful
blood to yourself makes you a threat, just as he was.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:
: "Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufilu$cj9$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
:> It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when
:> a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of
:> a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be
:> different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by
:> taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion?

: Because one is an action.
: Why can you Freak to untap after one but not the other?

Thought the reference was to why handling a diablerie of a Red List
means different things, depending on how it is executed?

Asking why you can't use Freak Drive to untap after you've blocked a
minion nets you an answer of "because it says so in the card", and the
correct answer to the answer is "duh, should've read it."

Asking why you don't get brownie points for diablerising a Red List by
blocking his/her action to raise from torpor nets you an answer of
"because it says so in the card", and the correct answer to the answer
is "uh, why?"

Not that I mind, really.

//T

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufnp8$fk6$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> : "Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufilu$cj9$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> :> It gets weird when the written card text creates a differing effect when
> :> a same thing can be achieved in different ways. Why would a diablerie of
> :> a Red List Vampire by blocking a "self-rescue from torpor" action be
> :> different regarding the Trophy rule than burning the same Red List by
> :> taking a (D) action to diablerize the minion?
>
> : Because one is an action.
> : Why can you Freak to untap after one but not the other?
>
> Thought the reference was to why handling a diablerie of a Red List
> means different things, depending on how it is executed?

That seems to be what we are both addressing, yes.

> Asking why you can't use Freak Drive to untap after you've blocked a
> minion nets you an answer of "because it says so in the card", and the
> correct answer to the answer is "duh, should've read it."
>
> Asking why you don't get brownie points for diablerising a Red List by
> blocking his/her action to raise from torpor nets you an answer of
> "because it says so in the card", and the correct answer to the answer
> is "uh, why?"

Why not "duh, I should've read it" (or, if "why?" is appropriate,
why not "uh, why?" to the Freak Drive after block non-allowance)?


--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2005 06:27:05 -0800, <jnewquist@difsol.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, the rule could have had three cases (diablerie,
burn in
> > combat, burn as (D) action). Instead it has two (burn in combat,
burn
> > as (D) action). The idea was probably that hunting down and
destroying
> > a Red List minion or defeating them in glorious combat were the
ways to
> > gain trophies, and sometimes this includes diablerie.
>
> Well said. The active effort of hunting down the vampire is a good
point.
> It's not flawless, as combat can occur when blocking or being
blocked,
> but it goes as far an RPG parallel should IMHO.

Ummm.. I meant either/or. Either you have hunted down and burned the
minion as a (D) action, or, however you entered combat, you engaged it
in glorious battle and not only emerged victorious, but destroyed your
opponent utterly.

You don't get trophies without active hunting and/or glorious battle.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:
: "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <etherial@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:20050210085354.V51060@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
:> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule
:> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?"
: No, I'm not.
: The parallel between Freak Drive and the Trophy Rule with
: regards to diablerie incorporates design. Perhaps someone
: is missing that part of the parallel, though.

This persistance in not acknowledging the difference between
diableries in different cases leads at least me to believe that it was
left out by an accident, rather than design. I'd get grumpy if I'd
notice something like that afterwards.

I might buy a reasoning that Block & Diab has been excluded, so that
a lone Red List vampire wouldn't be blocked during the action to raise
from torpor - at least not only to get the shiny Trophies lying on the
table. Might be a viable design reason behind the exclusion, I don't
know.

This might do for a reasoning, rather than a silly explanation of "You
can't get Trophies by Block & Diab just like you can't use Freak Drive after
a block - because Freak Drive is an Action Modifier."

//T

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:cufrcs$hoj$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> : "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <etherial@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message
news:20050210085354.V51060@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
> :> I think you're missing the point. The question is "Why was the rule
> :> designed this way?" not "Why do I have to follow the text?"
> : No, I'm not.
> : The parallel between Freak Drive and the Trophy Rule with
> : regards to diablerie incorporates design. Perhaps someone
> : is missing that part of the parallel, though.
>
> This persistance in not acknowledging the difference between
> diableries in different cases leads at least me to believe that it was
> left out by an accident, rather than design. I'd get grumpy if I'd
> notice something like that afterwards.

Heh.

The persistence you perceive is imagined.

I have already acknowledged that they are different - for instance,
one doesn't allow a Trophy opportunity (that one being not a
(D) action and not a combat).

> I might buy a reasoning that Block & Diab has been excluded, so that
> a lone Red List vampire wouldn't be blocked during the action to raise
> from torpor - at least not only to get the shiny Trophies lying on the
> table. Might be a viable design reason behind the exclusion, I don't
> know.
>
> This might do for a reasoning, rather than a silly explanation of "You
> can't get Trophies by Block & Diab just like you can't use Freak Drive after
> a block - because Freak Drive is an Action Modifier."

Use whatever reasoning you dream up.

That goes only to further support the Freak Drive parallel (which
can similarly be reasoned away, by parallel reasoning, even).

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> First and foremost, you need to remember that this is a _card game_,
> and not 'a roleplaying game played with cards'. Decisions are made
> first based on the card-game effects and then (to a much lesser extent)
> on how the semi-arbitrary flavor of the cards holds up to role-playing
> justifications.
>
> If you need a roleplaying justification, think of it like this: if you
> happen to stumble across a momentarily-vulnerable Red List minion
> totally by accident and eat him, no elder is going to give you the same
> respect as if you had set out to hunt him down where he lives and taken
> him out as a deliberate course of action and/or bested him in single
> combat.
>

I don't care what the reasoning is. I just want to know what it is.