NAF World Headquarters
Rules Questions - Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
DarkDancer17 - Jan 04, 2007 - 08:11 AM
Post subject: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
OK - Bloodlust.
It says that a failed Bloodlust roll means that the Vampire must take a Move Action, and loses his declared action for the turn. It says that if the Vampire ends his move next to a Thrall on the Pitch, he puts a bite on them. It mentions that if for any reason they are unable to bite a Thrall, they are placed into the Reserves Box, and a turn-over occurs.
My question occurs with a rather sneaky tactic. The tactic is that there are plenty of Thralls within reach - and no complications to getting there. However instead of moving, the vamp player declares they are done - and simply puts the Vamp in reserves and suffers the turn-over.
Is that legit? Or do they actually have to move the Vamp to a Thrall?
Thanks!
Mootaz - Jan 04, 2007 - 08:19 AM
Post subject:
That is totally legit. It removes a Vamp from the pitch and you suffer a turnover. That is a big enough punishment for not biting the thrall
DarkDancer17 - Jan 04, 2007 - 08:43 AM
Post subject:
I would disagree with that. If you are up 2-0, and it's the 7th turn of the last half, letting a Vamp get pulled out is a godsend. It prevents them from taking a beating.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 04, 2007 - 09:32 AM
Post subject: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
DarkDancer17 wrote:
However instead of moving, the vamp player declares they are done - and simply puts the Vamp in reserves and suffers the turn-over.
Is that legit? Or do they actually have to move the Vamp to a Thrall?
Thanks!
Totally legit ... in this case the Vampire has decided that the maiden groupie blood in the dugout looks more appealing than Thrall blood.
But it is a totally allowed tactic and on occassion will definitely be the right choice to make.
Galak
DarkDancer17 - Jan 04, 2007 - 09:36 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
Fair enough. Kind of figured that'd be the case, just seems a hokey way to get around it - no other negative trait really allows for you to side step it like that- other than just do nothing.
GalakStarscraper - Jan 04, 2007 - 10:06 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
DarkDancer17 wrote:
Fair enough. Kind of figured that'd be the case, just seems a hokey way to get around it - no other negative trait really allows for you to side step it like that- other than just do nothing.
What about declaring a blitz with a Wild Animal just to move them.
Galak
DarkDancer17 - Jan 04, 2007 - 10:42 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
Agreed, Galak. 
That seems hokey to me too. But hey, it's just a game. ;D