First strike and dodges...

Ok, in the scenario: Muddled VH vs some vampire. vampire wants to play a strike: dodge card. Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? or does that dodge work for First strikes too? If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? please clarify. At the mo the MVH minces us lot unless we have twisted auspex thanks in advance Simon

ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Simon) wrote: > > Ok, in the scenario: > Muddled VH vs some vampire. > vampire wants to play a strike: dodge card. > > Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? > or does that dodge work for First strikes too? > > If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the > strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? Peace Simon, The order of strike resolution is: Dodge (that is, a dodge cancels (sp) the opposing strike [not Strike: End Combat tho']) First Strike Strike (that is, 'normal' speed strikes come last) The answer to your first question is, "Yes, you may dodge a first strike." No, Strike: Dodge can only stop an Additional Strike if played by a vampire also taking Additional Strikes. This makes AddStrikes quite nasty. If your opponent plays sup Acrob [Strk:Dodge w/ AddStrk] and you don't have Celerity, your strike is ineffective and you will take the AddStrk and can't Dodge it [hope you brought some Fortitude]. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <D7ED...@info.bris.ac.uk>, ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Simon) wrote: > Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? > or does that dodge work for First strikes too? > > If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the > strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? The current ruling is that a dodge will dodge any strike (except a combat ends) during the strike resolution phase in which it is played. So, a dodge will dodge a first strike from a MVH (or any other for that matter) It does not dodge an additional strike. Superior acrobatics gives an additional strike, creating an additional strike resolution phase. To have a strike during this phase you must also have additional strikes. Now, there is nothing to stop you from dodging additional strikes if you have more dodges to play at that time. hope this helped. stephen

In article <D7ED...@info.bris.ac.uk>, Simon <ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk> wrote: >Ok, in the scenario: >Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? >or does that dodge work for First strikes too? Dodge beats First Strike. >If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the >strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? In order to stop the second strike, you'd have to have a second strike of your own. Dodge only provides a cancellation of one strike, and you'd need to play another one during the additional strike phase to stop the additional strike. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Simon) writes: >Ok, in the scenario: >Muddled VH vs some vampire. >vampire wants to play a strike: dodge card. >Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? >or does that dodge work for First strikes too? Dodge cancels first strike. >If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the >strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? If you get an additional strike as well, and use that additional strike to dodge, then you will avoid your opponent's additional strike. (The additional strike is not part of the Strike: Dodge, so will not be cancelled by your first dodge.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rules' Monger.

Simon <ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk> wrote: >Muddled VH vs some vampire. >vampire wants to play a strike: dodge card. >Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? >or does that dodge work for First strikes too? Like "combat ends", "dodge" takes effect as soon as it is played, so kicks in before a first strike would. >If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the >strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? No. Dodge just neutralizes a strike with respect to the dodging minion. It does not neutralize other aspects of the strike, so the additional strike will be produced, dodging a Burst of Sunlight will still result in the other minion taking damage, and so on. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > Simon <ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk> wrote: > >Muddled VH vs some vampire. > >vampire wants to play a strike: dodge card. > >Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? > >or does that dodge work for First strikes too? > > Like "combat ends", "dodge" takes effect as soon as it is played, > so kicks in before a first strike would. Peace Tom, I believe that this is a poor choice of words and it goes against what the revised rules say about dodges. Not that I disagree (I don't), it is just the 'takes effect _as soon as_ it is played' is a Bad Thing (TM). Why not say that Strike: Dodge is a First Strike? > >If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the > >strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? > > No. Dodge just neutralizes a strike with respect to the dodging minion. > It does not neutralize other aspects of the strike, so the additional > strike will be produced, dodging a Burst of Sunlight will still result > in the other minion taking damage, and so on. Thank you for clarifying that. I'm sure there were some other people who weren't clear on this. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >> >> >> Simon <ch...@mail.bris.ac.uk> wrote: >> >Muddled VH vs some vampire. >> >vampire wants to play a strike: dodge card. >> >Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? >> >or does that dodge work for First strikes too? >> >> Like "combat ends", "dodge" takes effect as soon as it is played, >> so kicks in before a first strike would. >Peace Tom, >I believe that this is a poor choice of words and it goes against what the >revised rules say about dodges. Not that I disagree (I don't), it is just >the 'takes effect _as soon as_ it is played' is a Bad Thing (TM). Why not >say that Strike: Dodge is a First Strike? Or, better, just Leave It Alone (TM). Sudden Reversal Cancels a Master Card. Dodge and Combat Ends both cancel strikes, whether with first strike or not. The fact that they (should) resolve after first strike doesn't change the fact that they cancel the strike with first strike. If the DT keeps screwing with the timing, then pretty soon, were going to have a stack of instant effects with little whirlpools of interrupts to resolve. I don't think anybody wants that. Request for DT: Munchkinize Mt$. Let the vampires alone. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger.

In article <3nmgml$e...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>Does First Strike mean the damage hits before the dodge can be played? >>or does that dodge work for First strikes too? > >Like "combat ends", "dodge" takes effect as soon as it is played, >so kicks in before a first strike would. Say what? When did this get reversed? The last I heard, dodge took place in strike resolution, just before anything else. What is the rationale for changing this? [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >If Strike: Dodge _does_ stop 1st strike, then can it also be used to block the > >strike from 'Strike: Dodge with additional strike' off twisted Acrobatics? > > No. Dodge just neutralizes a strike with respect to the dodging minion. > It does not neutralize other aspects of the strike, so the additional > strike will be produced, dodging a Burst of Sunlight will still result > in the other minion taking damage, and so on. This belongs in the FAQ. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >If the DT keeps screwing with the timing, then pretty soon, were going to >have a stack of instant effects with little whirlpools of interrupts to >resolve. I don't think anybody wants that. The Jyhad/V:TES design team is making a conscious effort to avoid timing issues. They (we?) don't want Jyhad to have the timing baggage that Magic does. But I don't really see how having combat ends work immediately is timing baggage; Sudden Reversal is certainly much closer to a real timing issue than combat ends is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>Like "combat ends", "dodge" takes effect as soon as it is played, >>so kicks in before a first strike would. > Say what? When did this get reversed? The last I heard, dodge >took place in strike resolution, just before anything else. What is the >rationale for changing this? As far as I remember, the first ruling on this to come from the design team was that dodges always beat first strike. There were tentative answers before that saying otherwise, but that was the first DTR on it. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >I believe that this is a poor choice of words and it goes against what the > >revised rules say about dodges. Not that I disagree (I don't), it is just > >the 'takes effect _as soon as_ it is played' is a Bad Thing (TM). Why not > >say that Strike: Dodge is a First Strike? > > That would make a fair amount of sense, true, but dodges are basically > seen as a diluted version of Combat Ends, which we very definitely want to > take effect right away, rather than waiting for any strike resolution step. > As long as there's one strike that takes effect right away, there's no > real harm in having two. Peace Tom, Unfortunately, there is harm in having a strike that takes effect immediately. Change things back. They were better before. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o3c3q$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >The Jyhad/V:TES design team is making a conscious effort to avoid timing >issues. They (we?) don't want Jyhad to have the timing baggage that >Magic does. But I don't really see how having combat ends work immediately >is timing baggage; Sudden Reversal is certainly much closer to a real >timing issue than combat ends is. It's timing baggage because it takes the rules and changes how they are applied. It takes the way you'd expect things to work and turns them around. Suddenly this card precludes you playing a card, which isn't something the rules cover. Sudden Reversal, at least, mentions that it's futzing with cardplay. The DT has made CE futz with cardplay without any rules reason. A little bit here, a little bit there, and suddenly we have timing rules... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o3bs8$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >That would make a fair amount of sense, true, but dodges are basically >seen as a diluted version of Combat Ends, which we very definitely want to >take effect right away, rather than waiting for any strike resolution step. >As long as there's one strike that takes effect right away, there's no >real harm in having two. But there's real harm in having *any* strike that takes effect right away. If you have cards that deny other players the chance to play cards, especially when the rules don't even imply such a thing is possible, you break those portions of the game that those denials affect. Jyhad shouldn't have the ability to play a card curtailed. Doing so gives a great advantage to the person who can stop cards from being played. *Please* stop this trend before it starts and reverse the ruling on Combat Ends. Let it resolve normally. It will still have the *same* effect on combat, and won't have undesirable cardplay side effects. Forward this to the design team, or whatever. Just don't continue down this course, for the sake of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o3ce1$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>>Like "combat ends", "dodge" takes effect as soon as it is played, >>>so kicks in before a first strike would. >> Say what? When did this get reversed? The last I heard, dodge >>took place in strike resolution, just before anything else. What is the >>rationale for changing this? > >As far as I remember, the first ruling on this to come from the design team >was that dodges always beat first strike. There were tentative answers >before that saying otherwise, but that was the first DTR on it. Yes, dodge has always beaten first strike. But it has never taken effect immediately, it has always been done in strike resolution, not as soon as it's played. Please tell the DT to think very seriously about what they're saying by allowing players to deny others the chance to play cards. This will drastically alter the way the game is played. *Very* drastically. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >Unfortunately, there is harm in having a strike that takes effect immediately. >Change things back. They were better before. Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. Having it do its thing during strike resolution would not be changing it *back*, it would be changing it for the first time. Combat ends is fine as it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > But there's real harm in having *any* strike that takes effect >right away. If you have cards that deny other players the chance to >play cards, especially when the rules don't even imply such a thing is >possible, you break those portions of the game that those denials affect. Do you have a problem with Day Operation? It stops anyone from playing any kind of card that would involve blocking the vampire, after all. The rules should not have to say you can always (or never) stop people from being able to play cards. If a card or sequence of play allows others to play cards, then fine; and if it doesn't, that's fine too. > *Please* stop this trend before it starts and reverse the ruling >on Combat Ends. Let it resolve normally. It will still have the *same* >effect on combat, and won't have undesirable cardplay side effects. The design team does not find the way combat ends works to be undesirable. We consider it to be just fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o693o$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Unfortunately, there is harm in having a strike that takes effect immediately. >>Change things back. They were better before. > >Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. Having it do >its thing during strike resolution would not be changing it *back*, it >would be changing it for the first time. Combat ends is fine as it is. That's your perspective. Back up for a moment. Until the DT issued the ruling that CE was instantaneous, everyone here on the net and everyone I played with locally played it such that CE was resolved during strike resolution. From *our* perspective you *did* change the way it was played. The best example I can think of is the clockwork ruling from Magic. Most people interpreted it one way and the DT interpreted it another. Same thing has happened here. I formally ask the design team to consider this ruling again, taking the common interpretation into account, much as the Magic team did for the clockwork ruling. Would you please forward this request to the Design Team, Tom? Thank you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o69sl$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> But there's real harm in having *any* strike that takes effect >>right away. If you have cards that deny other players the chance to >>play cards, especially when the rules don't even imply such a thing is >>possible, you break those portions of the game that those denials affect. > >Do you have a problem with Day Operation? It stops anyone from >playing any kind of card that would involve blocking the vampire, after all. But Day Operation specifies on the card that you can't stop it, and there's *still* the opportunity to play other reactions. Card play is not denied, merely hindered. And it's spelled out. The CE ruling is not based on something that spells out card denial, and it hoses all possible cards that the opponent could play at that moment, especially if you forbid master cards in combat (which you have said that you do). This denial is not laid out anywhere that any reasonable person will see in the rules, and is non-intuitive, especially given the wording in the rules which says "considered a strike" with *no* other qualifiers indicating instantaneous effect nor card denial. It is nowhere near Day Operation (which, I might add, is also balanced out by being a rare while CE is common in many cases). >The rules should not have to say you can always (or never) stop people from >being able to play cards. If a card or sequence of play allows others to >play cards, then fine; and if it doesn't, that's fine too. But the rules *should* indicate where likely places are that will stop you from playing cards. Day Op fits the bill fine, because it does specify what will happen. The CE ruling doesn't, because it is the opposite from what a reading of the rules will give you. >> *Please* stop this trend before it starts and reverse the ruling >>on Combat Ends. Let it resolve normally. It will still have the *same* >>effect on combat, and won't have undesirable cardplay side effects. > >The design team does not find the way combat ends works to be undesirable. >We consider it to be just fine. It is a counterintuitive ruling. It adds new paragraphs to the rules out of whole cloth. It adds a very bizarre side effect to the card that I cannot see any reason to support (please tell me *why* you feel that CE must deny card playing). That alienates your players and frankly, makes you look like you haven't played the game (I know that you have, and I know that you as a team are experts, but that *is* the impression others have stated here in the group). Much like in the clockwork ruling from Magic, you interpret it differently from everyone else on the net, and probably most of those not on the net, too. To paraphrase Fagin: I think you better think it out again. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o693o$c...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Unfortunately, there is harm in having a strike that takes effect immediately. >>Change things back. They were better before. > >Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. Having it do >its thing during strike resolution would not be changing it *back*, it >would be changing it for the first time. Combat ends is fine as it is. > If you take the view that the rulebook was printed before the Design Team ruling came out, the Combat Ends has not always kicked in as soon as it was played. Says it right there in the rulebook. And you used to talk about the Dodge "undoing" the effect of a First Strike - quite impossible if the first strike hasn't reached the resolution phase before the Dodge resolves (which it used to because Dodge used to resolve like a strike, and properly so). That's like saying stolen blood has always been kept on the stealing vampire, even in excess of capacity, until the combat ends. Just because you wish it to be doesn't make it so. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > But Day Operation specifies on the card that you can't stop it, >and there's *still* the opportunity to play other reactions. Card play >is not denied, merely hindered. And it's spelled out. The CE ruling is >not based on something that spells out card denial, and it hoses all >possible cards that the opponent could play at that moment... Day Operation largely hoses any cards your opponents might be interested in playing. Sure, they can use Telepathic Counter if you're bleeding them via the Day Operation, but they can't do anything if you're equipping with a weapon. Combat ends does not completely deny playing cards; they could still play Psyche, for example. It just so happens that Day Operation is typically used on actions like bleeding, which do have reactions that don't involve trying to block the vampire, but in essense it severely hinders the opponent's ability to react, so isn't terribly different from combat ends in that regard. >This denial is not laid out anywhere that any reasonable person will see >in the rules, and is non-intuitive, especially given the wording in the >rules which says "considered a strike" with *no* other qualifiers What else is "this ends combat immediately" (description of combat ends) supposed to mean? If it was supposed to end combat during Resolve Strikes, why would we say "immediately"? We can argue back and forth based on the rulebook all day, and we all know the rulebook is unclear or inaccurate in many cases. But you can certainly get the "blocking minion can't even strike" interpretation out of the rules given for combat ends. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oba44$i...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>This denial is not laid out anywhere that any reasonable person will see >>in the rules, and is non-intuitive, especially given the wording in the >>rules which says "considered a strike" with *no* other qualifiers > >What else is "this ends combat immediately" (description of combat ends) >supposed to mean? If it was supposed to end combat during Resolve Strikes, >why would we say "immediately"? To let you know that it took place before any other strikes' *effects* took place. (Hey! it even says it right there, after the word immediately, how about that?) How can you cancel a strike with first strike when the strike hasn't resolved yet? The Combat Ends cancels the first strike after the first strike resolves. (Like cancelling a Master Card after it has been played - see Giant's Blood vs. Sudden Reversal). > >We can argue back and forth based on the rulebook all day, and we all know >the rulebook is unclear or inaccurate in many cases. But you can certainly >get the "blocking minion can't even strike" interpretation out of the rules >given for combat ends. If you sit in a room long enough to convince yourself that different card backs don't affect the game, sure. :-) -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <3oba44$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> But Day Operation specifies on the card that you can't stop it, >>and there's *still* the opportunity to play other reactions. Card play >>is not denied, merely hindered. And it's spelled out. The CE ruling is >>not based on something that spells out card denial, and it hoses all >>possible cards that the opponent could play at that moment... > >Day Operation largely hoses any cards your opponents might be interested >in playing. Sure, they can use Telepathic Counter if you're bleeding them >via the Day Operation, but they can't do anything if you're equipping >with a weapon. Combat ends does not completely deny playing cards; they If you're equipping with a weapon with a Day Operation, that had better be one snazzy weapon! It's gonna cost you an extra turn and two extra blood thanks to the torpor trip. I don't buy stupid actions as an excuse. And Combat Ends *DOES* completely deny playing cards for that strike the way you rule it. You CANNOT play a strike. This is not intimated anywhere in the rules. Day Op still allows reactions, even if they would do no good (I can Wake or redirect or whatever, I just can't block), which allows cycling. CE completely stops this. >>This denial is not laid out anywhere that any reasonable person will see >>in the rules, and is non-intuitive, especially given the wording in the >>rules which says "considered a strike" with *no* other qualifiers > >What else is "this ends combat immediately" (description of combat ends) >supposed to mean? If it was supposed to end combat during Resolve Strikes, >why would we say "immediately"? Well, most people here seem to have interpreted it to mean that combat immediately ends when the strike resolves. Seems fairly straightforward and fits all the other rules including the bit about it being a strike just fine. >We can argue back and forth based on the rulebook all day, and we all know >the rulebook is unclear or inaccurate in many cases. But you can certainly >get the "blocking minion can't even strike" interpretation out of the rules >given for combat ends. Well, since the DT did get that interpretation, I'll not argue that point. But it seems that the overwhelming majority of interpreters didn't get that. I'd petition the DT to listen to the customers, as the Magic DT did during the clockwork debate, and change the ruling to reflect the interpretation which most people got. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oba44$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > > >Day Operation largely hoses any cards your opponents might be interested >in playing. Sure, they can use Telepathic Counter if you're bleeding them >via the Day Operation, but they can't do anything if you're equipping >with a weapon. Combat ends does not completely deny playing cards; they >could still play Psyche, for example. It just so happens that Day Operation >is typically used on actions like bleeding, which do have reactions that >don't involve trying to block the vampire, but in essense it severely hinders >the opponent's ability to react, so isn't terribly different from >combat ends in that regard. > Ummm, Day Op has a bit more of a price than combat ends... and for that price your opponents lose a chance to play cards. If I load up on Day Ops it's going to cost me a lot more than a bunch of combat ends. -steve kertes ker...@geoworks.com

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > > But Day Operation specifies on the card that you can't stop it, > >and there's *still* the opportunity to play other reactions. Card play > >is not denied, merely hindered. And it's spelled out. The CE ruling is > >not based on something that spells out card denial, and it hoses all > >possible cards that the opponent could play at that moment... > > Day Operation largely hoses any cards your opponents might be interested > in playing. Sure, they can use Telepathic Counter if you're bleeding them > via the Day Operation, but they can't do anything if you're equipping > with a weapon. Combat ends does not completely deny playing cards; they > could still play Psyche, for example. It just so happens that Day Operation > is typically used on actions like bleeding, which do have reactions that > don't involve trying to block the vampire, but in essense it severely hinders > the opponent's ability to react, so isn't terribly different from > combat ends in that regard. Peace Tom, Day Op is rare and has a huge cost (torporize one of your minions). CE is common (most)/uncommon(one or two) and has NO cost. Yes, untapping sometimes cost one (big whoop). CE doesn't need to be more powerful. Making it resolve early makes it more powerful. While I'm at it, offensive untaps & CE should cost one pool. [please, consider changing this in VtES] > We can argue back and forth based on the rulebook all day, and we all know > the rulebook is unclear or inaccurate in many cases. But you can certainly > get the "blocking minion can't even strike" interpretation out of the rules > given for combat ends. Unfortunately, Tom, you can get all sorts of weird ruling out of the current rulebook (just check this list). Prohibiting the blocking minion makes cards like Majesty just TOO powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >Unfortunately, there is harm in having a strike that takes effect immediately. > >Change things back. They were better before. > > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. Having it do > its thing during strike resolution would not be changing it *back*, it > would be changing it for the first time. Combat ends is fine as it is. Peace Tom, An awful lot of players seem to think that you are wrong on this one. I encourage ANYONE who thinks that CE should resolve immediately to post their agreement with Tom/DT. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: : > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. : An awful lot of players seem to think that you are wrong on this one. I encourage : ANYONE who thinks that CE should resolve immediately to post their agreement with : Tom/DT. This has always been how I played. I find the wording in the rulebook (esp the use of the word "immediately") to be pretty compelling. It makes it impossible for the blocking minion to play a strike card. Hmm. Well, thinking of the RPG and the LARP game, this makes a lot of sense to me. If a vamp turns on majesty, you wouldn't think of messing with them - you immediately back down and act respectful. For the card game, I don't see this as being a substantial restriction on the blocker. As for "this makes cards like Majesty too powerful" I thought the main problem people see with the card is that it allows me to bleed my prey, be blocked, untap the acting vampire (for one blood), etc etc, gradually wearing down my opponent by tapping all their vamps. I was thinking though, this is essentially what Misdirection does - and doing it with Majesty takes a lot more cards, and relies on your opponent playing along by blocking. Now, Misdirection is too powerful too, but when I though of Majesty in this light suddenly I was a lot less concerned about it... -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: >: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >: > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. > >: An awful lot of players seem to think that you are wrong on this one. I encourage >: ANYONE who thinks that CE should resolve immediately to post their agreement with >: Tom/DT. > >This has always been how I played. I find the wording in the rulebook >(esp the use of the word "immediately") to be pretty compelling. I find the use of the term Strike to be more compelling. > >It makes it impossible for the blocking minion to play a strike card. >Hmm. Well, thinking of the RPG and the LARP game, this makes a lot >of sense to me. If a vamp turns on majesty, you wouldn't think of >messing with them - you immediately back down and act respectful. You mean: you back down as soon as the vamp *thinks* about turning on Majesty. (When announced). Rather than "when a vamp turns on majesty". When a vamp hits me with claws, I take a point of agg damage - but not until the strike resolves. Same with Majesty. It's not the thought that counts. >For the card game, I don't see this as being a substantial restriction >on the blocker. Play more. >As for "this makes cards like Majesty too powerful" I thought the main >problem people see with the card is that it allows me to bleed my prey, >be blocked, untap the acting vampire (for one blood), etc etc, gradually >wearing down my opponent by tapping all their vamps. Exactly. >I was thinking though, this is essentially what Misdirection does - >and doing it with Majesty takes a lot more cards, and relies on your And a lot less Pool. What would you rather have? cards or pool? >opponent playing along by blocking. Now, Misdirection is too powerful >too, but when I though of Majesty in this light suddenly I was a lot >less concerned about it... -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oodho$s...@crl.crl.com>, L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, >Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: > >>For the card game, I don't see this as being a substantial restriction >>on the blocker. > >Play more. I humbly apologize for this remark. I was way outta line. Sorry. I should have said: It is the opinion of may that the manhandling of the rules for the case of Combat Ends creates a substantial restriction of the blocker. Sorry again for piping off in such an asinine manner. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: : In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, : Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: : >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : >: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: : > : >: > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. : > : >It makes it impossible for the blocking minion to play a strike card. : >Hmm. Well, thinking of the RPG and the LARP game, this makes a lot : >of sense to me. If a vamp turns on majesty, you wouldn't think of : >messing with them - you immediately back down and act respectful. : You mean: you back down as soon as the vamp *thinks* about turning on : Majesty. (When announced). Rather than "when a vamp turns on majesty". Yes - as soon as the vamp announces it (in the LARP, this is just done by a quick arm motion) I back down. When it's announced, it's turned on. : When a vamp hits me with claws, I take a point of agg damage - but not until : the strike resolves. Same with Majesty. It's not the thought that counts. Why the same with Majesty? Again, thinking first of the RPG and the LARP, it *is* the thought that counts. You're only going to lay your wolf claws on that Prince if you can blindside him (in Jyhad game mechanics, deny him a strike). The reason I bring up the RPG and LARP is that the only things that bug me about the game are things that are broken and things that are not consistent with the RPG. Fixing a game problem by ruining part of the connection with the RPG is not acceptable either. The DT ruling on Majesty makes sense in the context of the RPG; it does feel a bit broken, but unless I'm completely missing some point, I don't see any way that having it resolve in the Strike Resolution makes a significant difference. Unless... Is your preferred interpretation that, if Majesty *is* resolved during strike resolution, that the other vamp can actually have their strike resolved as well? If yes, I disagree with it even more. It's the whole idea of the Presence discipline - you're so impressive that an opponent won't get close enough to lay a finger on you. To cut to the chase, tell me what having Majesty resolve during strike resolution would really fix, and how...my guess is that either it doesn't fix much, or it makes Jyhad move away from how Presence is conceived of in the RPG/LARP. In either case, my reaction is negative. : >As for "this makes cards like Majesty too powerful" I thought the main : >problem people see with the card is that it allows me to bleed my prey, : >be blocked, untap the acting vampire (for one blood), etc etc, gradually : >wearing down my opponent by tapping all their vamps. : >I was thinking though, this is essentially what Misdirection does - : >and doing it with Majesty takes a lot more cards, and relies on your : And a lot less Pool. What would you rather have? cards or pool? But still the same amount of blood (Majesty requires payment of one blood for an untap). Depends on what kind of deck you're playing whether this distinction is really important or not. Blood in my pool is more valuable than blood on my vamps, but is spending 4 pool + 1 card worse than spending 4 blood off of vamps and spending 4 cards (and having a large number of dupes in my deck and in my hand)? It's not so clearcut then...at least to me. Especially if I'm playing with lots of titled vamps, minion taps, blood dolls...in which case their blood is my blood to some extent. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

The game rules on card playing sequence during combat has nothing to do with the actual sequence of the occurence of actions that playing those cards simulates. The acting minion does not in any way act first simply because he gets to play a strike first. The card playing order is nothing more than a technicality to avoid the problems of simultaneous declarations and allows for a more streamlined game play. The order in which things actually happen is determined by the rules concerning strike resolution (Combat Ends > Dodge > First Strike > normal Strike). If the acting minion can stop the blocking minion from doing anything by waving his arm, why can't the blocking minion do the same to the acting minion? The only logical explanation is that the timing of the _play_ of a strike card has nothing to do with when the effects occur; the effects occur when the strike _resolve_, after both players have played a strike. In article <beanishD...@netcom.com> bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: >: In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, >: Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >: >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: >: >: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >: > >: >: > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. >: > > >: >It makes it impossible for the blocking minion to play a strike card. >: >Hmm. Well, thinking of the RPG and the LARP game, this makes a lot >: >of sense to me. If a vamp turns on majesty, you wouldn't think of >: >messing with them - you immediately back down and act respectful. > >: You mean: you back down as soon as the vamp *thinks* about turning on >: Majesty. (When announced). Rather than "when a vamp turns on majesty". > >Yes - as soon as the vamp announces it (in the LARP, this >is just done by a quick arm motion) I back down. When it's >announced, it's turned on. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

I thought every vampire you control can only take 1 action a turn... It´s in the rulebook somewhere, so I don´t think you could bleed, be blocked play majesty, untap and bleed again. You can untap but you can not try to bleed again I think... Phi In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) says: > >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: >: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >: > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. > >: An awful lot of players seem to think that you are wrong on this one. I encourage >: ANYONE who thinks that CE should resolve immediately to post their agreement with >: Tom/DT. > >This has always been how I played. I find the wording in the rulebook >(esp the use of the word "immediately") to be pretty compelling. > >It makes it impossible for the blocking minion to play a strike card. >Hmm. Well, thinking of the RPG and the LARP game, this makes a lot >of sense to me. If a vamp turns on majesty, you wouldn't think of >messing with them - you immediately back down and act respectful. >For the card game, I don't see this as being a substantial restriction >on the blocker. > >As for "this makes cards like Majesty too powerful" I thought the main >problem people see with the card is that it allows me to bleed my prey, >be blocked, untap the acting vampire (for one blood), etc etc, gradually >wearing down my opponent by tapping all their vamps. > >I was thinking though, this is essentially what Misdirection does - >and doing it with Majesty takes a lot more cards, and relies on your >opponent playing along by blocking. Now, Misdirection is too powerful >too, but when I though of Majesty in this light suddenly I was a lot >less concerned about it... >-- >Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: >: In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, >: Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >: >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: >: >: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >: > >: >: > Combat ends has always kicked in as soon as it was played. >: > > >: >It makes it impossible for the blocking minion to play a strike card. >: >Hmm. Well, thinking of the RPG and the LARP game, this makes a lot >: >of sense to me. If a vamp turns on majesty, you wouldn't think of >: >messing with them - you immediately back down and act respectful. > >: You mean: you back down as soon as the vamp *thinks* about turning on >: Majesty. (When announced). Rather than "when a vamp turns on majesty". > >Yes - as soon as the vamp announces it (in the LARP, this >is just done by a quick arm motion) I back down. When it's >announced, it's turned on. No. He thinks about making the arm motin and you lie down (DT). The arm motion shouldn't come until the strike resolution (Rulebook). >The DT ruling on Majesty >makes sense in the context of the RPG; it does feel a bit broken, but >unless I'm completely missing some point, I don't see any way >that having it resolve in the Strike Resolution makes a significant >difference. Unless... > >Is your preferred interpretation that, if Majesty *is* resolved >during strike resolution, that the other vamp can actually have their >strike resolved as well? If yes, I disagree with it even more. It's >the whole idea of the Presence discipline - you're so impressive that an >opponent won't get close enough to lay a finger on you. To cut to the >chase, tell me what having Majesty resolve during strike resolution >would really fix, and how...my guess is that either it doesn't fix >much, or it makes Jyhad move away from how Presence is conceived >of in the RPG/LARP. In either case, my reaction is negative. No. This has been hashed over before. 1) simplicity - why have a card take effect when announce when such is not a part of the rules, and works the same way (usu.) without the exception. 2) fairness - Two minions play Majesty - fine, both go on about their business. 3) RPG effect - one playes majesty one attempts aggressive action. Majesty wins. Just like in the RPG. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : It means that the reacting vampire may play cards, if for no other reason than : to attempt to cycle through his/her deck. Why should Majesty "freeze" your : opponent Meth's hand? No, even if Majesty (on any other CE for that matter) : resolves in Strike Resolution the opponent's strike has no effect. It also : has to do with consistancy, Jeremy. It is inconsistant for one strike to : act totally different from all other strikes. If the blocker plays CE, it doesn't : prevent the acting vamp from playing a card. This is inconsistant. If all this is only about the fact that a Majesty from a blocking vampire from playing a pointless strike (ie, allowing the blocking player to discard a strike card), then my reaction is that this is all making mountains out of molehills. Anyway, isn't there another general principle in the game, that you can't just toss cards out when they are guaranteed to be pointless (such as, burning stealth modifiers on an action before the blocker has even come up with sufficient intercept)? Seems like what you folks want to see with the Combat Ends strike is inconsistent with that... Even if you have Majesty resolve during strike resolution, I think you still have to do some stuff that's outside of the rules as written. My recollection is that there is no timing or ordering of the strikes in the resolution phase (except for first strike, then regular)...So what in the rules would tell you that, if you have two strikes to resolve (simultaneously), and one of them is Combat Ends, the other strike would be ignored? Seems to me that you have to extend the rules here to get the proper effect... so from a rules purist point of view, I don't see that having the strike resolve in the resolution phase is any improvement. Saying that Combat Ends is first strike doesn't help, because what if the blocker has first strike too? It trades an asymmetry in strikes for a fuzzy area of rules. Myself, I don't find the asymmetry in the strikes to be aesthetically unpleasing, and it seems quite obvious how it works if it is resolved when announced. Sorry if this has been hashed over again and again already, but I didn't see those discussions...and what I do see is a lot of folks trashing the DT ruling and proposing something else, and I see that something else as not fixing anything important and being more ambiguous... -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >If all this is only about the fact that a Majesty from a blocking >vampire from playing a pointless strike (ie, allowing the blocking >player to discard a strike card), then my reaction is that this >is all making mountains out of molehills. Anyway, isn't there Perhaps. But it happens very often in games, and that makes it an important distinction (any time I see a Ventrue or a Toreador, I'm expecting it). >another general principle in the game, that you can't just toss >cards out when they are guaranteed to be pointless (such as, >burning stealth modifiers on an action before the blocker has >even come up with sufficient intercept)? Seems like what you >folks want to see with the Combat Ends strike is inconsistent with >that... Another Majesty isn't guaranteed to be pointless (for an example). >Even if you have Majesty resolve during strike resolution, I think >you still have to do some stuff that's outside of the rules as >written. My recollection is that there is no timing or ordering >of the strikes in the resolution phase (except for first strike, >then regular)...So what in the rules would tell you that, if you The order we perceived before the DT ruling came out (which itself was gleaned from DT answers and Tom answers) was the following: during strike resolution, strikes resolve in the following order: Combat Ends, then Dodge, then First Strike, then normal Strikes. This is also in accord with the written rules. >Sorry if this has been hashed over again and again already, but >I didn't see those discussions...and what I do see is a lot of >folks trashing the DT ruling and proposing something else, and >I see that something else as not fixing anything important and >being more ambiguous... You missed the entire strike resolution phase discussion, I guess. *That* alone more than makes up for any ambiguity that you perceive in the rules, and is solves these shaky insta-strike rulings. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: : >If all this is only about the fact that a Majesty from a blocking : >vampire from playing a pointless strike (ie, allowing the blocking : >player to discard a strike card), then my reaction is that this : >is all making mountains out of molehills. Anyway, isn't there : No, it's about allowing the blocker to End Combat and untap as well as : the attacker, or at least declare a strike, just like the attacker : gets to do. Ahh, ok, no one had mentioned this example before. I can understand the objections a bit better now...but I still don't see it as a big problem...just MHO...Hmm, trying to recall if Concealed Weapon is a strike card as well - that was about the only other constructive use of the strike I could think of... : No exceptions are needed. Each strike is well defined as to its effect : during resolution: : end combat end combat immediately, undoing effects of opponent's strike. I believe that "undoing effects" language is not in the rule book. That's what I was referring to when I said that having Combat Ends resolve during Strike Resolution requires you to extend the rules. I could be mistaken, but I'm sure you'll correct me if that's the case. (Say, is there an on-line version of the Jyhad rulebook somewhere? I'd much rather refer to the real thing rather than my recollection) : Note that the "untap this minion" part of a card that ends combat is : (officially, even!) not part of the strike, but a separate effect provided : by the card. It seems to me that *this* is the source of the problem, and not the DT ruling...the untap ability is just too good, too cheap. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: > > L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: > : In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, > : Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: > The DT ruling on Majesty > makes sense in the context of the RPG; it does feel a bit broken, but > unless I'm completely missing some point, I don't see any way > that having it resolve in the Strike Resolution makes a significant > difference. Unless... I have to slightly disagree with your agreement that the current "interpretation" of Majesty makes sense in the context of the RPG. Since we don't have initiative in the card game, allowing the acting minion to end combat immediately is unbalanced. > Is your preferred interpretation that, if Majesty *is* resolved > during strike resolution, that the other vamp can actually have their > strike resolved as well? If yes, I disagree with it even more. It's > the whole idea of the Presence discipline - you're so impressive that an > opponent won't get close enough to lay a finger on you. To cut to the > chase, tell me what having Majesty resolve during strike resolution > would really fix, and how...my guess is that either it doesn't fix > much, or it makes Jyhad move away from how Presence is conceived > of in the RPG/LARP. In either case, my reaction is negative. It means that the reacting vampire may play cards, if for no other reason than to attempt to cycle through his/her deck. Why should Majesty "freeze" your opponent Meth's hand? No, even if Majesty (on any other CE for that matter) resolves in Strike Resolution the opponent's strike has no effect. It also has to do with consistancy, Jeremy. It is inconsistant for one strike to act totally different from all other strikes. If the blocker plays CE, it doesn't prevent the acting vamp from playing a card. This is inconsistant. [ quoted text not captured ]

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >If all this is only about the fact that a Majesty from a blocking >vampire from playing a pointless strike (ie, allowing the blocking >player to discard a strike card), then my reaction is that this >is all making mountains out of molehills. Anyway, isn't there No, it's about allowing the blocker to End Combat and untap as well as the attacker, or at least declare a strike, just like the attacker gets to do. >another general principle in the game, that you can't just toss >cards out when they are guaranteed to be pointless (such as, >burning stealth modifiers on an action before the blocker has >even come up with sufficient intercept)? Seems like what you A second majesty is not pointless. And you are allowed to strike even after the attacker has announced a "strike: dodge". >folks want to see with the Combat Ends strike is inconsistent with >that... >Even if you have Majesty resolve during strike resolution, I think >you still have to do some stuff that's outside of the rules as >written. My recollection is that there is no timing or ordering >of the strikes in the resolution phase (except for first strike, >then regular)...So what in the rules would tell you that, if you >have two strikes to resolve (simultaneously), and one of them >is Combat Ends, the other strike would be ignored? Seems to me >that you have to extend the rules here to get the proper effect... No exceptions are needed. Each strike is well defined as to its effect during resolution: hands inflict one damage if at close. lucky blow inflict two damage if at close. .44 inflict two damage to opposing minion or any of his retainers. steal blood move N blood from opposing vampire to yourself. end combat end combat immediately, undoing effects of opponent's strike. dodge cancel (undo) the effect of the opponent's strike on you. any of these can resolve during the "first strike" phase if they are done with first strike, and any will be cancelled by an appropriate "cancelling" strike regardless of first strike. After resolution, any damage done (agg or normal) to a vampire may be healed if possible, and could send a vampire to torpor or the ashheap if sufficient blood is not available to heal/prevent destruction (normal/agg, resp.). Note that the "untap this minion" part of a card that ends combat is (officially, even!) not part of the strike, but a separate effect provided by the card. >so from a rules purist point of view, I don't see that having the >strike resolve in the resolution phase is any improvement. Saying >that Combat Ends is first strike doesn't help, because what if the >blocker has first strike too? First strike is irrelevant to CE and to Dodge. >It trades an asymmetry in strikes for a fuzzy area of rules. >Myself, I don't find the asymmetry in the strikes to be aesthetically >unpleasing, and it seems quite obvious how it works if it is >resolved when announced. Obvious if that is the case, yes. Obvious *why* that is the case, no. >Sorry if this has been hashed over again and again already, but >I didn't see those discussions...and what I do see is a lot of >folks trashing the DT ruling and proposing something else, and >I see that something else as not fixing anything important and >being more ambiguous... Not at all. Hope this little re-tirade helps clear things up. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. | are subject to card text.

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >: >If all this is only about the fact that a Majesty from a blocking >: >vampire from playing a pointless strike (ie, allowing the blocking >: >player to discard a strike card), then my reaction is that this >: >is all making mountains out of molehills. Anyway, isn't there >: No, it's about allowing the blocker to End Combat and untap as well as >: the attacker, or at least declare a strike, just like the attacker >: gets to do. >Ahh, ok, no one had mentioned this example before. I can understand >the objections a bit better now...but I still don't see it as a big >problem...just MHO...Hmm, trying to recall if Concealed Weapon is >a strike card as well - that was about the only other constructive >use of the strike I could think of... No. Concealed Weapon is a combat effect that must be played before range is determined. And it is not a "big" problem until you play a Majestic bleed deck. And it is never a "big" problem if you play it as a strike instead of as an announce-strike effect. So the "big" problem argument falls against the DTR. >: No exceptions are needed. Each strike is well defined as to its effect >: during resolution: >: end combat end combat immediately, undoing effects of opponent's strike. >I believe that "undoing effects" language is not in the rule book. Yes, it is. Combat Ends... even Cancels a strike done with First Strike. You can't cancel a strike that hasn't happened yet, and by the DTR, the First Strike will not occur to be cancelled. It would've had to read "even prevents a strike done with First STrike from occurring". >That's what I was referring to when I said that having Combat Ends >resolve during Strike Resolution requires you to extend the rules. No extension from my POV. >I could be mistaken, but I'm sure you'll correct me if that's the case. >(Say, is there an on-line version of the Jyhad rulebook somewhere? >I'd much rather refer to the real thing rather than my recollection) I'll mail you a copy of the "Corrected" Rules. >: Note that the "untap this minion" part of a card that ends combat is >: (officially, even!) not part of the strike, but a separate effect provided >: by the card. >It seems to me that *this* is the source of the problem, and not >the DT ruling...the untap ability is just too good, too cheap. That, too. But at least that follows the rules and card text without any hand-waving by the DT. [ quoted text not captured ]

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: > >: It means that the reacting vampire may play cards, if for no other reason than >: to attempt to cycle through his/her deck. Why should Majesty "freeze" your >: opponent Meth's hand? No, even if Majesty (on any other CE for that matter) >: resolves in Strike Resolution the opponent's strike has no effect. It also >: has to do with consistancy, Jeremy. It is inconsistant for one strike to >: act totally different from all other strikes. If the blocker plays CE, it doesn't >: prevent the acting vamp from playing a card. This is inconsistant. > >If all this is only about the fact that a Majesty from a blocking >vampire from playing a pointless strike (ie, allowing the blocking >player to discard a strike card), then my reaction is that this >is all making mountains out of molehills. Anyway, isn't there >another general principle in the game, that you can't just toss >cards out when they are guaranteed to be pointless (such as, >burning stealth modifiers on an action before the blocker has >even come up with sufficient intercept)? Seems like what you >folks want to see with the Combat Ends strike is inconsistent with >that... Peace Jeremy, There are at least two other occurances of "wasting" cards: acting vamp strikes to Dodge - the blocking vamp may still strike; and during a vote - you may toss as many Pol Actn cards as you have in your hand, even if they don't affect the vote. One of the most important things that CE occuring "instantly" causes is it prevents the blocking minion from playing a CE/untap also. This makes the CE/untap cards even more powerful and I doubt that you would find any one here who feels that CE/untaps are weak enough to need that boost. >Even if you have Majesty resolve during strike resolution, I think >you still have to do some stuff that's outside of the rules as >written. My recollection is that there is no timing or ordering >of the strikes in the resolution phase (except for first strike, >then regular)...So what in the rules would tell you that, if you >have two strikes to resolve (simultaneously), and one of them >is Combat Ends, the other strike would be ignored? Seems to me >that you have to extend the rules here to get the proper effect... >so from a rules purist point of view, I don't see that having the >strike resolve in the resolution phase is any improvement. Saying >that Combat Ends is first strike doesn't help, because what if the >blocker has first strike too? No, Strikes have 'always' (since the revised rules) resolved in this order: 1) Combat Ends, 2) Dodge, 3) First Strike, 4) normal Strike. >It trades an asymmetry in strikes for a fuzzy area of rules. >Myself, I don't find the asymmetry in the strikes to be aesthetically >unpleasing, and it seems quite obvious how it works if it is >resolved when announced. So, you are saying that you don't feel the acting minion being about to CE/untap while the blocking minion cannot is not a problem? Ever played against a Majestic bleed deck? >Sorry if this has been hashed over again and again already, but >I didn't see those discussions...and what I do see is a lot of >folks trashing the DT ruling and proposing something else, and >I see that something else as not fixing anything important and >being more ambiguous... We aren't proposing anything. DTR had said that strikes resolved as above. Recently they altered that ruling to say that CE was instant. If it was supposed to work this way, than why did they (DTR) put out an incorrect ruling? Why did it take so long to fix? Why do most of the posters here find this to be a problem? And what about chair? [ quoted text not captured ]