Suppose my acting vampire strikes and the blocking vampire strikes and then
plays skin of steel. Can I play Taste of Vitae and get the one blood
he spent on the damage prevention for my vampire?
The card text just says that my vampire gets all the blood lost
by the opposing vampire during the current round of combat. An argument
ensued and it came down to the question: What exactly does "lost" mean?
Please, no conjectures...just the facts.
Brian Tandy
bta...@bernard.ma.utexas.edu (Brian Tandy) writes:
>Suppose my acting vampire strikes and the blocking vampire strikes and
then
>plays skin of steel. Can I play Taste of Vitae and get the one blood
>he spent on the damage prevention for my vampire?
There's no official rule on this. I posted a set of card fix proposals
for playtesting 2 weeks ago which included explicitly restricting Taste to
gaining blood lost to heal damage.
The DTR has officially ruled that you can Taste stolen blood (thereby
getting it twice), so they are certainly not playing this logically.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3lp161$f...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Brian Tandy <bta...@bernard.ma.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Suppose my acting vampire strikes and the blocking vampire strikes and then
>plays skin of steel. Can I play Taste of Vitae and get the one blood
>he spent on the damage prevention for my vampire?
>>The card text just says that my vampire gets all the blood lost
>by the opposing vampire during the current round of combat. An argument
>ensued and it came down to the question: What exactly does "lost" mean?
>
>Please, no conjectures...just the facts.
>
>Brian Tandy
>
I play that blood *spent* (except to heal damage) is not *lost*
so you would not get the one blood.
But since you don't want conjecture take your pick....
kertes > webster lost
1 lost 2 lost;lose
Please choose a word -> 1
lost adj \'lost\
[pp. of lose]
1 : not made use of, won, or claimed
2 a : unable to find the way
b : no longer visible
c : lacking assurance or self-confidence : HELPLESS
3 : ruined or destroyed physically or morally : DESPERATE
4 a : no longer possessed
b : no longer known
5 a : taken away or beyond reach or attainment : DENIED [regions ~ to
the faith]
b : HARDENED, INSENSIBLE [~ to shame]
6 : ABSORBED, RAPT [~ in reverie]
lost.ness n \'los(t)-n*s\
kertes > webster lost
1 lost 2 lost;lose
Please choose a word -> 2
The word you chose is a variant of this word:
lose vb \'luz\ lost \'lost\; los.ing
[ME losen, fr. OE losian to perish, lose, fr. los destruction; akin to OE
leosan to lose; akin to ON losa to loosen, L luere to release, atone
for, Gk lyein to loosen, dissolve, destroy]
vt
1 : to bring to destruction -- used chiefly in passive constructions
[ship was lost on the reef]; specif : DAMN [if he shall gain the
whole world and ~ his own soul --Mt 16:26 (AV)]
2 : to miss from one's possessions or customary or supposed place
3 : to suffer deprivation of : part with esp. in an unforeseen or
accidental manner
4 a : to suffer loss through the death or removal of or final
separation from (a person)
b : to fail to keep control of or allegiance of [~ votes]
5 a : to fail to use : let slip by : WASTE [~ the tide]
b : to fail to win, gain, or obtain [~ a prize ~ a contest] :
undergo defeat in [lost every battle]
c : to fail to catch with the senses or the mind [lost part of what
he said]
6 : to cause the loss of [one careless statement lost him the election]
7 : to fail to keep, sustain, or maintain [lost his balance]
8 a : to cause to miss one's way or bearings [lost himself in the maze
of streets]
b : to make (oneself) withdrawn from immediate reality [lost himself
in daydreaming]
9 a : to wander or go astray from [lost his way]
b : to draw away from : OUTSTRIP [lost his pursuers]
10 : to fail to keep in sight or in mind
11 : to free oneself from : get rid of [dieting to ~ some weight]
vi
1 : to undergo deprivation of something of value
2 : to undergo defeat [~ with good grace]
3 of a timepiece
: to run slow
lose ground
vi
: to suffer loss or disadvantage : fail to advance or improve
lose one's heart
vi
: to fall in love
bta...@bernard.ma.utexas.edu (Brian Tandy) writes:
>Suppose my acting vampire strikes and the blocking vampire strikes and then
>plays skin of steel. Can I play Taste of Vitae and get the one blood
>he spent on the damage prevention for my vampire?
No. Just blood lost (wounds healed). Blood spent doesn't count.
>The card text just says that my vampire gets all the blood lost
>by the opposing vampire during the current round of combat. An argument
>ensued and it came down to the question: What exactly does "lost" mean?
See above.
>Please, no conjectures...just the facts.
Without an official presence, you will be limited to only receiving
conjecture to any questions. Sorry.
Taste of Vitae just says your vampire gains blood based on the blood "lost"
by the opposing vampire, and doesn't say anything about the manner in which
the blood is lost. It can certainly be argued that it should only count
up blood lost to damage, but that is not what the card says.
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) writes:
>Taste of Vitae just says your vampire gains blood based on the blood
"lost"
>by the opposing vampire, and doesn't say anything about the manner in
which
>the blood is lost. It can certainly be argued that it should only count
>up blood lost to damage, but that is not what the card says.
"Lost" blood is not defined in the rules. The card does not specify in
any way which of the three definitions apply:
Lost = used to prevent damage.
Lost = as above, or stolen.
Lost = as above, or used for combat cards.
Or, indeed, whether it is a number of other, not yet proposed but
theoretically possible, interpretations.
This issue can be resolved only by ruling or by (hopefully informed)
argumentation. Neither the car nor the rules provide a guide.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
It seems to me the direct interpretation of "lost" blood is as follows.
If vampire Ulugh Beg has 10 blood, and at the end of the round, he has 7
blood, than he has lost 3 blood. If Ulugh prevented all damage and at
the end of the round has 10 blood, than he has lost no blood. If Ulugh
used Skin of Steel and paid 1 blood, he ends up with 9 blood at the end
of the round. Thus he has 9 blood, and has lost 1 blood..
It seems to me that the simplest interpretation is this: at the beginning
of the round, vampire has X blood. Lost blood is the amount of blood vampire
has at the end of the round; let's call that Y. Then the lost lbood is
simply Y-X.
I didn't word that very well :) but it's just a difference of how much blood
vampire has before and after the battle.
HU IAN (hu...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: It seems to me the direct interpretation of "lost" blood is as follows.
[ quoted text not captured ]
And suppose a vampire takes four points of damage and uses theft of vitae.
Did he lose two blood, or four. What if they take one point of damage, and
thefts? In that case the vampire using taste of vitae would loose blood, if
you use your method! If they both use taste which resolves first? It makes a
very big difference if you define lost blood the way you do. I also have a
big problem with the logical justification of this. I take no damage because
of my steel hard skin, but my enemy is still able to sink his teeth in and
drink deeply, but only BECAUSE I have fortitude! This is a simple
interpretation, maybe too much so.
Larrx...
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Taste of Vitae just says your vampire gains blood based on the blood "lost"
>by the opposing vampire, and doesn't say anything about the manner in which
>the blood is lost. It can certainly be argued that it should only count
>up blood lost to damage, but that is not what the card says.
We're trying to determine if the rules say that blood spent (to play cards,
for example) is "lost" or merely "spent".
Officially, we know the answer. I'd just like to (every now and then) know
the reasons.
On Sat, 8 Apr 1995, HU IAN wrote:
>
> It seems to me the direct interpretation of "lost" blood is as follows.
> If vampire Ulugh Beg has 10 blood, and at the end of the round, he has 7
> blood, than he has lost 3 blood. If Ulugh prevented all damage and at
> the end of the round has 10 blood, than he has lost no blood. If Ulugh
> used Skin of Steel and paid 1 blood, he ends up with 9 blood at the end
> of the round. Thus he has 9 blood, and has lost 1 blood..
>
> It seems to me that the simplest interpretation is this: at the beginning
> of the round, vampire has X blood. Lost blood is the amount of blood vampire
> has at the end of the round; let's call that Y. Then the lost lbood is
> simply Y-X.
>
> I didn't word that very well :) but it's just a difference of how much blood
> vampire has before and after the battle.
>
I think there should be a clearer difference between blood "lost" from
things that the vampire's opponent does, and blood "spent/used" to
counter/prevent those things. It is a tough call though. I always say Taste
as the vamp slurping up whatever blood was around, be it on the him, his
opponent, or the ground.
Remy
leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault!
Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball!
| - Han Solo
"I don't want the world, I just want your half."
"Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped."
>
>