| Author |
Message |
DarkDancer17 |
|
Post subject: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
 Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 08:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 19, 2003
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Posts: 211
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 08:19 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 16, 2005
Undisclosed
Posts: 102
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 08:43 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 19, 2003
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Posts: 211
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 09:32 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 09:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 19, 2003
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Posts: 211
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 10:06 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: Yet another question, this time for Vamps!
Posted: Jan 04, 2007 - 10:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 19, 2003
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Posts: 211
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Status: Offline
|
|
Agreed, Galak.  That seems hokey to me too. But hey, it's just a game. ;D |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
