Blood theft and pulled fangs

Hello again, If I was to strike: Theft of Vitae and my opponent was to merely issue a handstrike for one damage, could they play a Pulled Fangs card on me? Just a case of whether or not blood theft constitutes damage I suppose. Pulled fangs sucks.

In article <36A91B78...@alphalink.com.au>, Anders Lang <sc...@alphalink.com.au> writes [ quoted text not captured ] They could play Pulled Fangs because Theft is not damage. > Pulled fangs sucks. > It deals non-aggravated damage (errata). It now no longer "sucks". -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Anders Lang wrote: > Hello again, > If I was to strike: Theft of Vitae and my opponent was to merely issue > a handstrike for one damage, could they play a Pulled Fangs card on me? > Just a case of whether or not blood theft constitutes damage I suppose. Yes they could. > Pulled fangs sucks. Not as good as it was but still usable. (i don't like the new ruling on pulled fangs either) Robert

Anders Lang <sc...@alphalink.com.au> wrote: > If I was to strike: Theft of Vitae and my opponent was to merely issue > a handstrike for one damage, could they play a Pulled Fangs card on me? > Just a case of whether or not blood theft constitutes damage I suppose. Steal Blood is explicitly not damage. [Rulebooks: Revised 6.4.5; VTES 8.3; Jyhad 15.3] Yes, if your opponent inflicts 1 damage while you inflict none, he can Pull your Fangs (if at close and he's not going to Torpor, etc.) -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Anders Lang <sc...@alphalink.com.au> wrote: > Pulled fangs sucks. While I agree that the current errata on Pulled Fangs is overboard, the rest of the text on Pulled Fangs is still worthwhile. I've had little problem making the card work in its current form. I just prefer to staying as close to card text as possible. Noal -- "...but simply by putting my hair in a ponytail, I transform into the coolest guy in the office." -Wally (Scott Adams), "Jan 12 Dilbert" [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Ekvall <rek...@hem.passagen.se> wrote in message news:36AC3A96...@hem.passagen.se... >Anders Lang wrote: > >> Hello again, >> If I was to strike: Theft of Vitae and my opponent was to merely issue >> a handstrike for one damage, could they play a Pulled Fangs card on me? >> Just a case of whether or not blood theft constitutes damage I suppose. > >Yes they could. > >> Pulled fangs sucks. > >Not as good as it was but still usable. (i don't like the new ruling on >pulled fangs either) Neither do I... that's why my group errataed the errata to say that "Pulled Fangs does 1 aggravated damage that may not result in the burning of the opposing vampire(other methods still apply(i.e. Amaranth, other sources of aggravated damage))"... plus all of the other text.... it still makes it a very playable card without resulting in the burn problems that resulted... we also did this to other aggravated damage combo cards and combos that seem overpowering ... we felt the punishment of the vampire sitting in torpor was bad enough... but still recoverable most of the time... Vince

In article <78if1v$khk@simba>, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: [re not liking the new rulings on Pulled Fangs] > Neither do I... that's why my group errataed the errata to say that "Pulled > Fangs does 1 aggravated damage that may not result in the burning of the > opposing vampire(other methods still apply(i.e. Amaranth, other sources of > aggravated damage))"... plus all of the other text.... it still makes it a > very playable card without resulting in the burn problems that resulted... Personally, I think it makes sense that Pulled Fangs should do agg damage, but it's not a big deal to me...I would be equally happy with either the current state of affairs, or a restriction to only play one PF per combat. Either way. Although that might create interesting interactions with Skin of Night and Heart of Darkness. Hmm...maybe I *do* prefer the current ruling. Well...whatever. Either way would work. > we also did this to other aggravated damage combo cards and combos that > seem overpowering ... we felt the punishment of the vampire sitting in torpor > was bad enough... but still recoverable most of the time... <note: not in attack mode> Could you explain what other combos you are referring to? I mean, are you talking about Burning Wrath? It seems to me that card is over-costed as is...does your group rule that Burning Wrath does agg damage, but does not burn the vampire? Really...I can't think of any agg damage combos that *don't* require a lot of cards, making it really hard to pull off correctly. Hmm...how about Dawn Operation plus Blood Fury/Rage? Does the vampire just go to torpor if it would have been burned? I'm even more confused by the other combos that you refer to...'combos that seem overpowering.' I can *almost* see the agg damage thing, sort of like a reverse of the <shudder> Basic game, but I really don't know what other card combos would burn a vampire, yet be too deemed too powerful and changed to simply putting the vampire in torpor. Like Sacrifice or Tradition upheld? Those aren't really combos, I suppose. Umm...I guess I feel like I'm missing a concept I shouldn't be...which combos does your group have problems with? Xian, who did not enter attack mode at all...or at least hopes that it didn't come off that way... "They look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78if1v$khk@simba>, "Vince Johnson" <john...@tcnj.edu> wrote: > Robert Ekvall <rek...@hem.passagen.se> wrote in message > >Not as good as it was but still usable. (i don't like the new ruling on > >pulled fangs either) > Neither do I... that's why my group errataed the errata to say that "Pulled > Fangs does 1 aggravated damage that may not result in the burning of the > opposing vampire(other methods still apply(i.e. Amaranth, other sources of > aggravated damage))"... plus all of the other text.... it still makes it a > very playable card without resulting in the burn problems that resulted... > we also did this to other aggravated damage combo cards and combos that seem > overpowering ... we felt the punishment of the vampire sitting in torpor was > bad enough... but still recoverable most of the time... Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought you said that CL made errata unnecessary or at least minimalized it? Yet, here, you've made more complex errata than what the RT came up with (changing the word aggravated to regular) and added more errata to other aggravated damage cards. And I quote Johnny Cochrane's Chewbacca defense: "It does not make sense." Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

> It deals non-aggravated damage (errata). It now no longer >"sucks". I'm sorry, but I do not share that opinion. At the very best, the only thing that it does is tie up 1 of the opposing minions for 2 turns, or 2 minions for 1 turn. That's it. And if you had a really crappy draw and weren't able to put the opposing vamp into torpor, then PF is just an annoyance that it's controller doesn't have to worry about. I used it in several of my combat decks after the errata and found it to be almost completely useless. Now, I don't even bother. In my mind, the ideal errata would have been to limit it to one per round. This would completely eliminate stacking. Of course, this is just my (completely worthless </sar>) opinion. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought you said that >CL made errata unnecessary or at least minimalized it? Yet, here, you've >made more complex errata than what the RT came up with (changing the word >aggravated to regular) and added more errata to other aggravated damage >cards. > First off this isn't a CL post...so our errata has nothing to do with feelings on limits... besides I said MINIMALIZED... there are some errata that regardlessly still need to exist because of stupid things like the word Dodge being printed without the word Strike infront of it... Second.... it's not complex rulings since it's the addition of a small phrase that we use in HOUSE RULES... not tournement... when we play tourney we use the exact rules on the card... which incidentally means that Agg Dam is used to full extent... we only also play this in a small group that includes 3 people... when we go to play at our local store with more people we use that store's house rules... which is usually the words on the card... as is because no one liked what the new rules say... Vince

>In my mind, the ideal errata would have been to limit it to >one per round. This would completely eliminate stacking. >Of course, this is just my (completely worthless </sar>) >opinion. I agree that's another option... but I tend to see that pulled fangs are fun to play on vamps that are caught continually hunting by an XTC Laced and then rushed and have their fangs ripped... fun idea but really hard to pull off..then again I only played the deck when there was only Jyhad and nothing else... Actually that's what I used Pulled fangs with originally before I realized it was entirely to powerful and highly useful without the XTC... Vince

In article <78kmte$tdu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes > >> It deals non-aggravated damage (errata). It now no longer >>"sucks". > >I'm sorry, but I do not share that opinion. The original poster seemed to be unaware of the Pulled Fangs errata, since he was obviously having problems being hit by it in a non-damage deck. It is now easier for a Tremere to cope with it, since he never has the problem of going to torpor etc. "suck" in the sense of "is not as abusable as the version you're playing". Whether it is the best errata or not is, of course, open to debate. [ quoted text not captured ]