Well, Here's my thoughts and commentray on the current RTR.
First of all, I'd like to reflect on the comments made about LSJ being a one
man Rules Team.
I was hesitant when this selection was made by WoTC, but his rulings have
generally been fair and just. The current outline still supports this,
however, the huge changes made to the game really REQUIRE that new cards for
the cards, in which the text has been completed altered, must be undertaken
by WoTC. This could be done by printing labels to apply to the blank cards
they intend to print.
Second, changed made to correct pulled fangs was over done, when the agro
damage was changed. There is no need to change PF if the new agro damage is
used. It is things like this which imply the new RTR were not completely
reviewed in varied styles of play. If is also fixed with the new damage
prevention rule. So the PF issue is really a non issue.
Third, LSJ has a "select" group of players to aid in playing out and making
the corrections. My question here is why cannot the Newsgroup and The
Michigan List, be made an arm of any new changes. I do not mean to imply
that these formats would have any real authority, but that projected changed
should be filtered through them then back to LSJ's group for final
arbitration. That way LSJ gets the option to include our vocal rantings in
any new RTR, and we the vocal, cannot say we did not try to make a balanced
game.
Fourth, If the newsgroup and Michigan List seem too open, then perhaps the
VEKN could appoint spokes minions from geographical areas to get feed back.
Sure these suggestions would slow down release of RTR, but there would be a
complete discussion of all card/play aspects, prior to changes being forced on
the players.
A few people have complained about LSJ being a dictator with the new authority
he was appointed. In some cases this is a good thing. A dictator will make
things move forward, and might mean new life in the VTES world. On the flip
side, a dictator cannot make us play the game, so long as we live in a
democracy, so the strong arm tactics will cause a loss of some vocal and
motivated players. This will slow the growth of the game, and if enough
advanced players drop then the game will die.
A free democracy would allow the continued fragmentation on the game and game
plying. Currently this shows up in all the varied house rules, and regions
rules. It would mean little constructive Rulings and they would be tossed
aside frequently depending on where you happen to be playing the game.
What we need is a fine balance between the dictator power wielded by LSJ and
a free democracy. A confederation between the V:EKN, LSJ, the Jyhad
newsgroup, the Michigan List and The Wizards needs to be constructed. Each
has a different view and goal in what they want out of the game. All these
aspects must be considered and all game changes should reflect these views as
often as possible.
I will venture out on a limb here, but I seem to see this as primary goals of
the different participants:
WoTC : generate interest in VTES to create sales.
LSJ : create simple consistant rulings for VTES
Newgroup: Correct vastly over powered cards without wallpapering them.
Mich List: Create a common sense view of rules and errata.
V:KEN : create interest and oversee Tournements
Lets review this list and see what we can do.
Regardless of any of the above, without a mass distribution available to all
players and not just the net linked, we can change the cards as much and as
often as we can stomach, the larger VTES community, just don't care, and will
not listen to our ramblings. I have seen sights of this happening already.
Lets us hope that WoTC release the PDF file and issue official DCI errata to
certified judges. And perhaps get this info into the magazine. The non net
contected rely on the Duelist for all their Magic changes, it should be
extended to Vtes also.
David J. McCarty
Prince of South Haven
V:EKN
and yea thats a whole hell of a lot more than 2 cents!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
David J. McCarty wrote:
> Second, changed made to correct pulled fangs was over done, when the agro
> damage was changed. There is no need to change PF if the new agro damage
> is used. It is things like this which imply the new RTR were not
> completely reviewed in varied styles of play. If is also fixed with the
> new damage prevention rule. So the PF issue is really a non issue.
PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
And, even without stacking, it was still unbalanced with respect to
Lucky Blow et. al. (As was noted in the comments, for those
without enough time to conduct their own thorough review).
The fix to PF was made to correct this.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> David J. McCarty wrote:
> > Second, changed made to correct pulled fangs was over done, when the agro
> > damage was changed. There is no need to change PF if the new agro damage
> > is used. It is things like this which imply the new RTR were not
> > completely reviewed in varied styles of play. If is also fixed with the
> > new damage prevention rule. So the PF issue is really a non issue.
>
> PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
>
> And, even without stacking, it was still unbalanced with respect to
> Lucky Blow et. al. (As was noted in the comments, for those
> without enough time to conduct their own thorough review).
You can play Lucky Blow without already having to have done more damage
to the opposing minion than you've taken.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
rai...@mich.com wrote:
> Well, Here's my thoughts and commentray on the current RTR.
>
> First of all, I'd like to reflect on the comments made about LSJ being
> a one man Rules Team.
>
> I was hesitant when this selection was made by WoTC, but his rulings
> have generally been fair and just. The current outline still supports
> this, however, the huge changes made to the game really REQUIRE that
> new cards for the cards, in which the text has been completed altered,
> must be undertaken by WoTC. This could be done by printing labels to
> apply to the blank cards they intend to print.
Cards with labels attached aren't going to shuffle/cut very well. They'll
also be kind of obvious when they come to the top of the deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35A65F...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> David J. McCarty wrote:
> > Second, changed made to correct pulled fangs was over done, when the agro
> > damage was changed. There is no need to change PF if the new agro damage
> > is used. It is things like this which imply the new RTR were not
> > completely reviewed in varied styles of play. If is also fixed with the
> > new damage prevention rule. So the PF issue is really a non issue.
>
> PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
>
Then fix that. Conceptually, stacking Pulled Fangs should never
have been allowed to happen. I have never seen a new player,
or anyone without net access try to do this. The point of the
Pulled Fangs was to put the vampire in torpor. Once this was
accomplished that should have been the end of combat because
you cannot fight with a vampire in torpor. The only card that
should have been usable after the first PF should have been
Amaranth.
If this had been fixed 4 years ago, instead of bungled by the
prior RT none of this current mess would have happened.
But we all know about that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>
> Cards with labels attached aren't going to shuffle/cut very well. They'll
> also be kind of obvious when they come to the top of the deck.
> ---
> Eric Pettersen
> pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
>
Then use sleeves. We do in Vienna. Almost everyone here does. We wouldn't
mind labels, but reprinted cards wiht the corrected texts would be *a lot*
better. (WotC representatives, did you get that? We want a 2nd edition!!!)
-Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
> >
> Then fix that. Conceptually, stacking Pulled Fangs should never
> have been allowed to happen. I have never seen a new player,
> or anyone without net access try to do this. The point of the
> Pulled Fangs was to put the vampire in torpor. Once this was
> accomplished that should have been the end of combat because
> you cannot fight with a vampire in torpor. The only card that
> should have been usable after the first PF should have been
> Amaranth.
>
> If this had been fixed 4 years ago, instead of bungled by the
> prior RT none of this current mess would have happened.
>
> But we all know about that.
>
Right, fix that. I have made the same observations with PF.
I'd like it being not stackable, but staying the same it is.
This would be an easy, smooth fix, which suffices.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Eric Pettersen wrote:
>
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > David J. McCarty wrote:
> > > Second, changed made to correct pulled fangs was over done, when the agro
> > > damage was changed. There is no need to change PF if the new agro damage
> > > is used. It is things like this which imply the new RTR were not
> > > completely reviewed in varied styles of play. If is also fixed with the
> > > new damage prevention rule. So the PF issue is really a non issue.
> >> > PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
> >> > And, even without stacking, it was still unbalanced with respect to
> > Lucky Blow et. al. (As was noted in the comments, for those
> > without enough time to conduct their own thorough review).
>
> You can play Lucky Blow without already having to have done more damage
> to the opposing minion than you've taken.
Yes, and you can dodge a Lucky Blow and Lucky Blow doesn't prevent
you from hunting, and you can only play one Lucky Blow per round
unless you have additional strikes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
> >> Then fix that.
As I said in the part of the post that you clipped, that
is not the sole part of PF imbalance. The fact that it
is stackable was pointed out simply to refute D. McCarty's
statement that the aggro rules change makes changing PF
unnecessary.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35A9FC...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> As I said in the part of the post that you clipped, that
> is not the sole part of PF imbalance. The fact that it
> is stackable was pointed out simply to refute D. McCarty's
> statement that the aggro rules change makes changing PF
> unnecessary.
A ruling (or belief) that I've never understood is how Pulled
Fangs can even be stacked at all. Once a vampire is in Torpor,
the combat should be over. The only cards allowable are those
that have explicit card text (Amaranth, Decapitate, etc.).
Under the new rulings, what happens when you play more than
one PF? Does all the PF damage resolve at once or as each is
played? If it resolves one at a time, stacking it only adds
the difficulty of having to take more actions to be able to
hunt again.
Mike
[ quoted text not captured ]
mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>
> > As I said in the part of the post that you clipped, that
> > is not the sole part of PF imbalance. The fact that it
> > is stackable was pointed out simply to refute D. McCarty's
> > statement that the aggro rules change makes changing PF
> > unnecessary.
>
> A ruling (or belief) that I've never understood is how Pulled
> Fangs can even be stacked at all. Once a vampire is in Torpor,
> the combat should be over. The only cards allowable are those
> that have explicit card text (Amaranth, Decapitate, etc.).
>
> Under the new rulings, what happens when you play more than
> one PF? Does all the PF damage resolve at once or as each is
> played? If it resolves one at a time, stacking it only adds
> the difficulty of having to take more actions to be able to
> hunt again.
As each is played. Each one causes a point of damage, so requires
that a blood be spent to heal that damage (or that the damage be
prevented).
If it were aggravated, then each one past the first would require
the expenditure of a blood to prevent destruction (this is different
than the old "packeted" Jyhad rules).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> Eric Pettersen wrote:
> >> > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > > PF is still stackable, as was noted during review.
> > >> > > And, even without stacking, it was still unbalanced with respect to
> > > Lucky Blow et. al. (As was noted in the comments, for those
> > > without enough time to conduct their own thorough review).
> >
> > You can play Lucky Blow without already having to have done more damage
> > to the opposing minion than you've taken.
>
> Yes, and you can dodge a Lucky Blow
A successful dodge also prevents PF. As does S:CE, or doing as much damage
as your opponent (or preventing his). You can play LB against allies,
but not PF.
> and Lucky Blow doesn't prevent you from hunting,
Yeah, PF beats LB on that, but LB is always playable.
> and you can only play one Lucky Blow per round unless you have additional
> strikes.
I think most people agree that PF shouldn't be stackable.
I guess the real question is: is any card that is better than Lucky Blow
going to be errataed to be no better than Lucky Blow? If not, why is PF
being so errataed?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35AA46...@wizards.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Did I get this right: damage (aggro and normal)is not stacked?
Example:
Angus is in combat with Leandro. Angus has a Wolf Companion. Angus plays
Carrion Crows and Scorpion Sting as his strike, he then makes his damage
aggravated (wolf claws). Angus inflicts 6 damage, 3 of it aggravated.
Leandro has 4 blood left. First the normal damage is resolved - Leandro has
1 blood left, then the aggro damage: the first point sends him to torpor
without burning blood, the second burns his last blood, and the third
burns Leandro as he can no longer burn blood.
Is this correct, or is it truly more complicated?
Could you clear this up LSJ?
-Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> Did I get this right: damage (aggro and normal)is not stacked?
I would say that it *is* stacked. Not "packetted", though, if that's
what you mean.
> Example:
> Angus is in combat with Leandro. Angus has a Wolf Companion. Angus plays
> Carrion Crows and Scorpion Sting as his strike, he then makes his damage
> aggravated (wolf claws). Angus inflicts 6 damage, 3 of it aggravated.
Leandro takes 6, 3 of it aggravated. Angus is only inflicting the
three aggravated part (the rest is environmental).
> Leandro has 4 blood left. First the normal damage is resolved - Leandro has
> 1 blood left, then the aggro damage: the first point sends him to torpor
> without burning blood, the second burns his last blood, and the third
> burns Leandro as he can no longer burn blood.
Correct.
For handling agg damage, you apply each point in the following way:
* Has the vampire taken (and not prevented) damage that he has
not healed?
Y: If so, then the vampire must burn one blood to prevent being
destroyed by the agg damage
N: If not, then the vampire simply cannot heal the damage (since
it is aggravated), so will go to torpor.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
[re: how pulled fangs is stacked]
: As each is played. Each one causes a point of damage, so requires: that a blood be spent to heal that damage (or that the damage be
: prevented).: If it were aggravated, then each one past the first would require
: the expenditure of a blood to prevent destruction (this is different
: than the old "packeted" Jyhad rules).
Sorry to add to general confusion by discussing what used to be
instead of what is, but...
I don't understand how Pulled Fangs could have been stacked when it
was aggravated damage (if it was used successfully). I thought that
all cards in Jyhad resolve as soon as you play them - so, when one
vamp plays a PF, the vamp having its fangs pulled immediately takes
one agg damage, and in most cases goes to torpor right then - making
it impossible to play another PF (in other words, PF could only ever
burn vamps with no blood on them). Sure, you could have ended up
pulling multiple fangs if the PF-receiver was preventing the damage
from each one as you played it, but otherwise I don't see how
'stacking' could arise.
Josh
always confused, sometimes confusing
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
>
> [re: how pulled fangs is stacked]> Sorry to add to general confusion by discussing what used to be
> instead of what is, but...
>
> I don't understand how Pulled Fangs could have been stacked when it
> was aggravated damage (if it was used successfully). I thought that
> all cards in Jyhad resolve as soon as you play them - so, when one
> vamp plays a PF, the vamp having its fangs pulled immediately takes
> one agg damage, and in most cases goes to torpor right then - making
> it impossible to play another PF
Yes, this argument was made when the "stackable" ruling was first
made. The RT ruled that it was stackable by virtue of being playable
whenever the round was ending, regardless of the nature of the ending.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35AB48...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > Did I get this right: damage (aggro and normal)is not stacked?
>
> I would say that it *is* stacked. Not "packetted", though, if that's
> what you mean.
Please explain *as simple as possible* what the difference between packing
and stacking is.
>
> > Example:
> > Angus is in combat with Leandro. Angus has a Wolf Companion. Angus plays
> > Carrion Crows and Scorpion Sting as his strike, he then makes his damage
> > aggravated (wolf claws). Angus inflicts 6 damage, 3 of it aggravated.
>
> Leandro takes 6, 3 of it aggravated. Angus is only inflicting the
> three aggravated part (the rest is environmental).
>
> > Leandro has 4 blood left. First the normal damage is resolved - Leandro has
> > 1 blood left, then the aggro damage: the first point sends him to torpor
> > without burning blood, the second burns his last blood, and the third
> > burns Leandro as he can no longer burn blood.
>
> Correct.
>
> For handling agg damage, you apply each point in the following way:
>
> * Has the vampire taken (and not prevented) damage that he has
> not healed?
>
> Y: If so, then the vampire must burn one blood to prevent being
> destroyed by the agg damage
>
> N: If not, then the vampire simply cannot heal the damage (since
> it is aggravated), so will go to torpor.
>
What about this: a vampire is burned if he cannot heal 2 or more points
of aggr. damage (instead of saying that the first aggro point simply does
no damage and merely sends the vamp in torpor)?
Just curios, wouldn't that be easier to teach?
-Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
>
> In article <35AB48...@wizards.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > > Did I get this right: damage (aggro and normal)is not stacked?
> >
> > I would say that it *is* stacked. Not "packetted", though, if that's
> > what you mean.
>
> Please explain *as simple as possible* what the difference between packing
> and stacking is.
Packetted: The first point of agg from each individual source doesn't
require any blood.
Stacking: Damage is cumulative. All the damage is lumped together
regardless of the source.
> > For handling agg damage, you apply each point in the following way:
> >
> > * Has the vampire taken (and not prevented) damage that he has
> > not healed?
> >
> > Y: If so, then the vampire must burn one blood to prevent being
> > destroyed by the agg damage
> >
> > N: If not, then the vampire simply cannot heal the damage (since
> > it is aggravated), so will go to torpor.
>
> What about this: a vampire is burned if he cannot heal 2 or more points
> of aggr. damage (instead of saying that the first aggro point simply does
> no damage and merely sends the vamp in torpor)?
>
> Just curios, wouldn't that be easier to teach?
Possibly, but it is not correct.
A vampire cannot heal aggravated damage under any circumstances, by
definition.
The first point does damage, but doesn't require a point of blood to heal,
since it cannot be healed. It also doesn't require a point of blood to
prevent destruction, since the vampire has no unhealed damage at that
time, so doesn't face the possibility of destruction.
It is also not complete. A vampire with zero blood can be burned by
taking 1 point of normal damage and 1 point of agg (if he doesn't
prevent any of it).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
: >
: > I don't understand how Pulled Fangs could have been stacked when it: > was aggravated damage (if it was used successfully). I thought that
: > all cards in Jyhad resolve as soon as you play them - so, when one
: > vamp plays a PF, the vamp having its fangs pulled immediately takes
: > one agg damage, and in most cases goes to torpor right then - making
: > it impossible to play another PF: Yes, this argument was made when the "stackable" ruling was first
: made. The RT ruled that it was stackable by virtue of being playable
: whenever the round was ending, regardless of the nature of the ending.
...Oh. Good point. I forgot about the 'playable at the end of any
round' thing. Regardless, I think I've been reminded now just how
abusive Pulled Fangs was, and why I shouldn't complain that it was
mostly neutered. My only other complaint on the issue is that Disarm
is almost as abusive now (its only saving grace being that it can't
burn vampires).
Josh
prolific today
In article <35ACC1...@wizards.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Now I'd say that last comment of yours is more than difficult to grasp.
(At least for me) ;)
You know that this is now more complicated than back in the Jyhad days.
At that time it needed 2 aggravated to burn a vamp with zero blood.
In V:TES it required 1 aggravated.
NOW, it requires 1 normal and 1 aggravated.
Please tell me what's easier with the new ruling.
Does the first point of aggravated damage now remove one blood from the
vamp or not?
Here's a suggestion for the aggro rule how I understand it:
"The first point of aggravated damage burns no blood from the vamp, it
only sends him/her to Torpor. If a vamp has to burn blood due to
aggravated damage, and cannot (because he has no blood left), he is
burned. All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultenously, first
normal damage takes effect, on top of this aggravated."
Hm? I guess that comes very close to what you meant.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > It is also not complete. A vampire with zero blood can be burned by
> > taking 1 point of normal damage and 1 point of agg (if he doesn't
> > prevent any of it).
>
> Now I'd say that last comment of yours is more than difficult to grasp.
> (At least for me) ;)
>
> You know that this is now more complicated than back in the Jyhad days.
> At that time it needed 2 aggravated to burn a vamp with zero blood.
> In V:TES it required 1 aggravated.
> NOW, it requires 1 normal and 1 aggravated.
It only requires an unhealed point of damage (whether normal or
aggravated) followed by a point of aggravated that the vampire
cannot burn a blood for.
> Please tell me what's easier with the new ruling.
>
> Does the first point of aggravated damage now remove one blood from the
> vamp or not?
The "first" modifier is irrelevant now.
Any point of aggravated will require a blood to prevent destruction
if the damage is done to a wounded vampire (a vampire who has
unhealed damage).
> Here's a suggestion for the aggro rule how I understand it:
>
> "The first point of aggravated damage burns no blood from the vamp, it
> only sends him/her to Torpor. If a vamp has to burn blood due to
> aggravated damage, and cannot (because he has no blood left), he is
> burned. All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultenously, first
> normal damage takes effect, on top of this aggravated."
>
> Hm? I guess that comes very close to what you meant.
Yes, but you're still trying to use the "first point" attribute,
which is tripping up the logic.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > Here's a suggestion for the aggro rule how I understand it:
> >
> > "The first point of aggravated damage burns no blood from the vamp, it
> > only sends him/her to Torpor. If a vamp has to burn blood due to
> > aggravated damage, and cannot (because he has no blood left), he is
> > burned. All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultenously, first
> > normal damage takes effect, on top of this aggravated."> Yes, but you're still trying to use the "first point" attribute,> which is tripping up the logic.
Try this then:
"From a given source of damage, the first point of aggravated damage
burns no blood from the vamp; it only sends him/her to Torpor. If there is
more aggravated damage inflicted, the vamp has to burn blood to avoid
destruction; if he can't, he is burned. All damage taken by a vamp from a
source is applied simultenously, first normal damage takes effect, on top
of this aggravated."
"Source" meaning one weapon, one strike, or one retainer. In the
previous example, one Strike and 4 Wolf Companions would be
considered as 5 different sources of damage.
How is this?
Frederic.
gen...@iname.com wrote:
> "From a given source of damage, the first point of aggravated damage
> burns no blood from the vamp; it only sends him/her to Torpor. If there is
> more aggravated damage inflicted, the vamp has to burn blood to avoid
> destruction; if he can't, he is burned. All damage taken by a vamp from a
> source is applied simultenously, first normal damage takes effect, on top
> of this aggravated."
>
> "Source" meaning one weapon, one strike, or one retainer. In the
> previous example, one Strike and 4 Wolf Companions would be
> considered as 5 different sources of damage.
>
> How is this?
This is exactly the same as the old Jyhad method, complete with the
"packet" problem.
It is not the official method.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > How is this?
>
> This is exactly the same as the old Jyhad method, complete with the
> "packet" problem.
Then now I'm confused. I'll have to think about it.
Frederic
> > > Here's a suggestion for the aggro rule how I understand it:
> > >
> > > "The first point of aggravated damage burns no blood from the vamp, it
> > > only sends him/her to Torpor. If a vamp has to burn blood due to> > > aggravated damage, and cannot (because he has no blood left), he is
> > > burned. All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultenously, first> > > normal damage takes effect, on top of this aggravated."
>> > Yes, but you're still trying to use the "first point" attribute,
> > which is tripping up the logic.
>
> Try this then:
>> "From a given source of damage, the first point of aggravated damage
> burns no blood from the vamp; it only sends him/her to Torpor. If there is
> more aggravated damage inflicted, the vamp has to burn blood to avoid
> destruction; if he can't, he is burned. All damage taken by a vamp from a
> source is applied simultenously, first normal damage takes effect, on top
> of this aggravated."
>
> "Source" meaning one weapon, one strike, or one retainer. In the
> previous example, one Strike and 4 Wolf Companions would be
> considered as 5 different sources of damage.
>
Ick! No. Those are the old "packeted" rules from Jyhad. Those were bad.
The new rules have everything good from the Jyhad agg damage rules, without
the stupid packeting.
-Chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35ADE9...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > > It is also not complete. A vampire with zero blood can be burned by
> > > taking 1 point of normal damage and 1 point of agg (if he doesn't
> > > prevent any of it).
> >
> > Now I'd say that last comment of yours is more than difficult to grasp.
> > (At least for me) ;)
> >
> > You know that this is now more complicated than back in the Jyhad days.
> > At that time it needed 2 aggravated to burn a vamp with zero blood.
> > In V:TES it required 1 aggravated.
> > NOW, it requires 1 normal and 1 aggravated.
>
> It only requires an unhealed point of damage (whether normal or
> aggravated) followed by a point of aggravated that the vampire
> cannot burn a blood for.
Hm, so it's a mix between the Jyhad and the V:TES rules. In Jyhad
you had to inflict 2 aggravated damage upon a vamp with zero blood
to burn him. In V:TES this was reduced to 1 point to burn him.
Now it requires either 1 point of normal _or_ aggravated damage,
followed by 1 point of aggravated to burn. (i.e. 1 normal plus 1
aggro _or_ 2 aggro)
1 aggravated damage to a vamp with zero blood does not burn him anymore?
The damage is stacked, and applied simultanously.
>
> > Please tell me what's easier with the new ruling.
> >
> > Does the first point of aggravated damage now remove one blood from the
> > vamp or not?
>
> The "first" modifier is irrelevant now.
>
> Any point of aggravated will require a blood to prevent destruction
> if the damage is done to a wounded vampire (a vampire who has
> unhealed damage).
This suggests that you only need 1 aggravated to burn a vamp w/ 0 blood.
>
> > Here's a suggestion for the aggro rule how I understand it:
> >
> > "The first point of aggravated damage burns no blood from the vamp, it
> > only sends him/her to Torpor. If a vamp has to burn blood due to
> > aggravated damage, and cannot (because he has no blood left), he is
> > burned. All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultenously, first
> > normal damage takes effect, on top of this aggravated."
> >> > Hm? I guess that comes very close to what you meant.
>> Yes, but you're still trying to use the "first point" attribute,
> which is tripping up the logic.
Okay, I'll try again:
All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultanously, first normal damage
is applied, on top of this aggravated. A vampire goes to torpor if he has
to burn blood and cannot (since he has no blood left) _or_ if he takes a
point of aggravated damage. Furthermore, if a vampire has to burn blood
from aggravated damage and cannot, he is burned.
But this means that a vamp can be burned by 1 point of aggro, not by
2 points, as your initial ruling and the following postings by various
players indicated. (This also means aggro d. is not at all similar to
aggro d. from Jyhad.)
-Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > It only requires an unhealed point of damage (whether normal or
> > aggravated) followed by a point of aggravated that the vampire
> > cannot burn a blood for.
>
> Hm, so it's a mix between the Jyhad and the V:TES rules. In Jyhad
> you had to inflict 2 aggravated damage upon a vamp with zero blood
> to burn him. In V:TES this was reduced to 1 point to burn him.
> Now it requires either 1 point of normal _or_ aggravated damage,
> followed by 1 point of aggravated to burn. (i.e. 1 normal plus 1
> aggro _or_ 2 aggro)
Well, if he doesn't heal the first point (normal or aggravated) *and*
doesn't have a blood to spend for the second point (the aggravated)
one, he burns.
> 1 aggravated damage to a vamp with zero blood does not burn him anymore?
Agrravated damage done to a wounded vampire requires the vampire
to burn blood to prevent destruction. If he cannot, he is destroyed.
> > Any point of aggravated will require a blood to prevent destruction
> > if the damage is done to a wounded vampire (a vampire who has
> > unhealed damage).
>
> This suggests that you only need 1 aggravated to burn a vamp w/ 0 blood.
Only if he is wounded (i.e., already has taken damage that he hasn't healed).
> > Yes, but you're still trying to use the "first point" attribute,
> > which is tripping up the logic.
>
> Okay, I'll try again:
>
> All damage taken by a vamp is applied simultanously, first normal damage
> is applied, on top of this aggravated. A vampire goes to torpor if he has
> to burn blood and cannot (since he has no blood left) _or_ if he takes a
> point of aggravated damage. Furthermore, if a vampire has to burn blood
> from aggravated damage and cannot, he is burned.
Yes, but you neglect to specify when a vampire has to "burn blood from
aggravated damage" (which is: only if he already has unhealed damage).
And the proper way to say it (as I've said many times already):
All damage is applied simultaneously. After damage prevention (if
any), the normal damage is handled before the aggravated damage.
A vampire must burn one blood to heal each point of damage.
Aggravated damage cannot be healed. A vampire with unhealed damage
will be placed in torpor after the rest of the damage is resolved.
Once wounded (received damage that he couldn't heal), any remaining
damage that is aggravated will burn the vampire unless he burns a
blood to prevent destruction.
> But this means that a vamp can be burned by 1 point of aggro, not by
> 2 points, as your initial ruling and the following postings by various
> players indicated. (This also means aggro d. is not at all similar to
> aggro d. from Jyhad.)
By your wording, yes. Please try my wording.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
[ quoted text not captured ]