Rutor's hand

There is a new Tham card that is a +1 stealth action that does 1 agg damage(that can't be prevented) to the acting vampire,and begining with your next turn the vsmpire one additional untap during your minion phases for the remainder of the game .The supperior says the damage may be prevented.I was wondering how would you prevent the damage?

In article <00001f5b...@msn.com>, Chick Lewis <Chick...@msn.com> wrote: >Flak jacket, or resplendent protector maybe, would prevent the damage. Nope, since they only "prevent one damage each combat", and Rutor's hand does its damage as an action, not during combat. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >Pete Giannopoulos (Olet...@bighorn.accessnv.com) wrote: >: There is a new Tham card that is a +1 stealth action that does 1 [ quoted text not captured ] >Damn fine question - one for which we are _all_ awaiting the answer, >since the Rules Team declared that one cannot prevent damage any time >other than the strike resolution phase of a combat... UHM..... Maybe Merrill can change it to non ag and stay out of TORPOR at least. and maybe we're not seeing the new DS cards that allow prevention anytime. >Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, >tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once. >Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant Don't knwo for sure. Stu -- "Bother," said Pooh as he realized he couldn't speak Klingon.

Pete Giannopoulos (Olet...@bighorn.accessnv.com) wrote: : There is a new Tham card that is a +1 stealth action that does 1 : agg damage(that can't be prevented) to the acting vampire,and begining with your next turn the vsmpire : one additional untap during your minion phases for the remainder of the : game .The supperior says the damage may be prevented.I was wondering : how would you prevent the damage? Damn fine question - one for which we are _all_ awaiting the answer, since the Rules Team declared that one cannot prevent damage any time other than the strike resolution phase of a combat... Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, [ quoted text not captured ]

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : Pete Giannopoulos (Olet...@bighorn.accessnv.com) wrote: : : There is a new Tham card that is a +1 stealth action that does 1 : : agg damage(that can't be prevented) to the acting vampire,and begining with your next turn the vsmpire : : one additional untap during your minion phases for the remainder of the : : game .The supperior says the damage may be prevented.I was wondering : : how would you prevent the damage? : Damn fine question - one for which we are _all_ awaiting the answer, : since the Rules Team declared that one cannot prevent damage any time : other than the strike resolution phase of a combat... Could this be interpreted to mean that the damage IS prevented [the vampire doesn't take any]? I haven't seen the exact wording of the card but maybe this is what they were getting at? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicole Janine Purvis (npu...@tiger.lsu.edu) wrote: : Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : : Pete Giannopoulos (Olet...@bighorn.accessnv.com) wrote: : : : The supperior says the damage may be prevented.I was wondering : : : how would you prevent the damage? : : Damn fine question - one for which we are _all_ awaiting the answer, : Could this be interpreted to mean that the damage IS prevented [the : vampire doesn't take any]? I haven't seen the exact wording of the card : but maybe this is what they were getting at? But that would then leave the card with the following effects: (paraphrasing here...) inferior: Vampire gains a free untap every turn. Vampire takes one aggravated damage immediately, which cannot be prevented. Superior: Vampire gains a free untap every turn. Vampire takes one aggravated damage, which is immediately prevented. ... and that makes even _less_ sense... :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Could this be interpreted to mean that the damage IS prevented [the > vampire doesn't take any]? I haven't seen the exact wording of the card > but maybe this is what they were getting at? > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | > | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | > | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | > | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The exact wording is +1 stealth action Put this card on an acting vampire.The vampire takes 1 aggravated damage(damage not preventable).Begining with your next turn,the vampire gets one additional untap during each of your next minion phases for the remainder of the game, Superior is As above,but the aggravated damage may be prevented. Which is pointless right now unless they plan on making a card which prevents damage during an action. Olethors

Pete Giannopoulos <Olet...@bighorn.accessnv.com> writes: >The exact wording is >+1 stealth action >Put this card on an acting vampire.The vampire takes 1 aggravated >damage(damage not preventable).Begining with your next turn,the vampire >gets one additional untap during each of your next minion phases for >the remainder of the game, >Superior is >As above,but the aggravated damage may be prevented. >Which is pointless right now unless they plan on making a >card which prevents damage during an action. >Olethors flak jaket or reslpendent protector? -- -chad -- -chad

: inferior: Vampire gains a free untap every turn. Vampire takes one : aggravated damage immediately, which cannot be prevented. : Superior: Vampire gains a free untap every turn. Vampire takes one : aggravated damage, which is immediately prevented. : ... and that makes even _less_ sense... :-) True this makes absolutely no sense perhaps the designers of this particularly powerful card thought for some insane reason that you could use combat cards when there is no combat, perhaps the card should read as follows. : inferior: Vampire gains a free untap every turn. Vampire takes one : aggravated damage immediately, which cannot be prevented. : Superior: Vampire gains a free untap every turn. Vampire takes one : aggravated damage, during this action you may play combat cards to reduce the damage. I think that this makes more sense to what the cards meaning is. ||||||| BRAD /\ wa...@nevada.edu |^_.^ _^|. o O (all I did was smoke) /vvvvvvvvvvvv \-----------------------C\[@]-[@]/)-------, ____ `^^^^^^^^^^^^ /========================| : U .:|=======" / /\ WARD \/ wa...@cs.unlv.edu `.(===):' ( ==/=*~) \---/ \/____/

I have no idea how to prevent the Rutor¹s Hand damage, but it does bring to mind some interesting possibilities. This came up in a game the other day: I was playing a Necromancy/Thaumaturgy/Potence/Dominate deck that my friend had put together. Astrid Thomas (with a skill card) was burned, but she had a Soul Gem, so out came Carlotta Giovanni. My prey was just about to bring out Lucian when I drew a Malk. Dementia. When he brought out Lucian, I took him with the Dementia, used Carlotta to bring the Dementia back into my hand, and played the Rutor¹s Hand on Lucian. With Carlotta continually bringing the Dementia back, and Lucian untapping with the Rutor¹s hand, *and* with Carlotta getting her blood back with the Mortician, I could use Lucian *every turn* against my prey. Plus, that¹s three votes against his political. Woulda been fun, but he managed to get a 7 bleed past me with Alexandra (w/ Sup. Dominate and Obfuscate) Governing and Conditioning. Sigh. Judy

Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: > >UHM..... Maybe Merrill can change it to non ag and stay out of TORPOR at >least. and maybe we're not seeing the new DS cards that allow prevention >anytime. except that Merrill isn't really preventing it, he's converting it. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : : Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: : >UHM..... Maybe Merrill can change it to non ag and stay out of TORPOR at : >least. and maybe we're not seeing the new DS cards that allow prevention : >anytime. : : except that Merrill isn't really preventing it, he's converting it. : Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics : aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu : http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ : Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. I think the point is that the vampire just goes to torpor, the time and the cost of getting him out works as part of the action cost. If you have "Chantry" in play, or as above Merrill is doing the action then you can avoid part of the actions costs. As for the superior version, it looks like a balls up not allowing damage prevention cards outside of combat. _________________________________________________________ |* Nik Olver. Email: np-o...@uwe.ac.uk *| | Join the JYHAD or Vampire:The Eternal Struggle at | |*__ http://zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk/~np-olver/Welcome.html __*|

In article <4a84mn$6...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >When taking damage from superior Rutor's Hand, treat it as if you were >being struck in combat. So combat cards, Flak Jackets, etc. are effective. So, we can play these combat cards outside of a combat when damage is done, but not inside of combat except during strike resolution? <paugh> If I can prevent this Rutor Hands damage (which is a good thing), I should be able to prevent damage done in combat, no matter when it is done - Pulled Fangs, Spawning Pool, etc. Pulled Fangs is certainly describing "being struck during combat". This also begs the question as to whether other, more obviously combat, effects can now be prevented - like the three damage from Talbot's Chainsaw. TC is certainly more like combat than the self-inflicted wound of Rutor's Hand. Also, is the text on Flak Jacket and such now "prevent one damage per action or combat", or can I prevent as many '1' points of damage with it outside of combat as I like? [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >When taking damage from superior Rutor's Hand, treat it as if you were >being struck in combat. So combat cards, Flak Jackets, etc. are effective. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. So a "combat-ends" card (like majesty) would also stop the damage? Also, I have a cryptic mission question: Retainers are automatically healed if they survive combat... Do they ever heal if someone Cryptic missions them? We have explored several alternatives (none of them satisfactory) 1) The retainer heals immediately 2) the retainer never heals (this is our currently accepted ruling) 3) The retainer heals during your next untap 4) The retainer heals to full after the next combat they are involved in (should they survive)

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>When taking damage from superior Rutor's Hand, treat it as if you were >>being struck in combat. So combat cards, Flak Jackets, etc. are effective. >So, we can play these combat cards outside of a combat when damage is done, >but not inside of combat except during strike resolution? Rutor's Hand allows you to prevent damage outside of strike resolution; this is not possible in general. This is because the superior versoin says the damage may be prevented. Sorry for not making that clear. >This also begs the question as to whether other, more obviously combat, >effects can now be prevented - like the three damage from Talbot's Chainsaw. > >TC is certainly more like combat than the self-inflicted wound of Rutor's Hand The TC damage is not "obviously" combat at all. But no, you can't prevent it. >Also, is the text on Flak Jacket and such now "prevent one damage per action >or combat", or can I prevent as many '1' points of damage with it >outside of combat as I like? In general, damage preventing permanents (including Flak Jacket) are only usable during combat. Execptions will be listed on the cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Bruce Carson> wrote: >>When taking damage from superior Rutor's Hand, treat it as if you were >>being struck in combat. So combat cards, Flak Jackets, etc. are effective. >So a "combat-ends" card (like majesty) would also stop the damage? No. Majesty's function is to end combat (and to untap), not to prevent damage; *avoiding* damage is part of its effect. Also, Majesty is a strike, and Rutor's Hand definitely does not allow you to play strikes. >Also, I have a cryptic mission question: > Retainers are automatically healed if they survive combat... > Do they ever heal if someone Cryptic missions them? >We have explored several alternatives (none of them satisfactory) >1) The retainer heals immediately >2) the retainer never heals (this is our currently accepted ruling) >3) The retainer heals during your next untap >4) The retainer heals to full after the next combat they are involved >in (should they survive) At the end of a combat, a retainer heals any damage it suffered *during that combat*. If damage is dealt to a retainer outside of combat, this permanently reduces the retainer's life. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>This also begs the question as to whether other, more obviously combat, >>effects can now be prevented - like the three damage from Talbot's Chainsaw. >> >>TC is certainly more like combat than the self-inflicted wound of Rutor's Hand >The TC damage is not "obviously" combat at all. I didn't say it was. I said the TC *effect* was *more* obviously a combat effect than Rutor. A weapon dealing damage sounds a lot more like combat than the convulsions brought on by the 'gimme an extra untap' action of Rutor's hand. How exactly does a flak jacket prevent that kind of *blood* manipulation (Rutor's is a Thaum card, dealing with blood manipulation)? Going against logic to deny preventing corporal damage while allowing preventing internal damage bespeaks little of the design and testing process. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>>When taking damage from superior Rutor's Hand, treat it as if you were >>>being struck in combat. So combat cards, Flak Jackets, etc. are effective. >>So, we can play these combat cards outside of a combat when damage is done, >>but not inside of combat except during strike resolution? >Rutor's Hand allows you to prevent damage outside of strike resolution; >this is not possible in general. This is because the superior versoin >says the damage may be prevented. Sorry for not making that clear. It only says that to override the "not preventable" text on inferior. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johnny Tullner (jb...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote: : In article <4ad1g1$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, : Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: : > : >>>When taking damage from superior Rutor's Hand, treat it as if you were : >>>being struck in combat. So combat cards, Flak Jackets, etc. are effective. : >>So, we can play these combat cards outside of a combat when damage is done, : >>but not inside of combat except during strike resolution? : > : >Rutor's Hand allows you to prevent damage outside of strike resolution; : >this is not possible in general. This is because the superior versoin : >says the damage may be prevented. Sorry for not making that clear. : I'm sorry, but this is too much. If you wish to make that ruling, then : you MUST errata Rutor's Hand to say "This damage may be prevented, and you : may use combat cards to do so." : Or else damage prevention cards should always be usable. : Either way, this is just one more *broken* thing. Typical non-net : players cannot figure this out, and having rulings or errata sux. : I always thought LSJ was way harsh on WotC, but at this point I am seeing : his side of things. Misprints I don't mind, but broken and/or confusing : cards and rules that keep appearing....agh. I wonder if WotC thinks at : all or playtest this stuff. That is not intended as an insulting remark, : just an honest question. I mean, my friends and I had no DS, but as soon as : we got the spoiler list we picked out all the broken and confusing cards. : We didn't even have to play with them. It's just, like, common sense. : Which reminds me, I think something is severely wrong with Werewolf Pack. : It is "unaffected by damage from melee weapons." Several points. #1, if : that truly is their ability, and not a misprint, they are worthless for 4 : pool. #2, there is only ONE melee weapon I know of where this might matter, : the bastard sword. #3, no matter how many weapons there are anyway, the : bearer could always opt not to use the weapon, thus the pack will always get : hurt. : I believe the ability was meant to be (or at least should have been) : "unaffected by melee damage." This would make them actually useful. It is : also consistent with the Garou's healing ability, ie it is very difficult : to hurt a pack of werewolves. This doesn't at all make them better than : a Garou, since they lack all of his other abilities. Even that wouldn't be a true reflection, as ranged weapons [even DB'd guns] could do normal damage as they would to any other minion... [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>>This also begs the question as to whether other, more obviously combat, >>>effects can now be prevented - like the three damage from Talbot's Chainsaw. >>> >>>TC is certainly more like combat than the self-inflicted wound of Rutor's Hand > >>The TC damage is not "obviously" combat at all. > >I didn't say it was. > >I said the TC *effect* was *more* obviously a combat effect than Rutor. > >A weapon dealing damage sounds a lot more like combat than the convulsions >brought on by the 'gimme an extra untap' action of Rutor's hand. actually to do the routor's hand ritual (least in the RPG not neccicarly in the LARP <painfull>) one must CUT off ones own hand... this does in fact suck. then the HAND acts indipendendantly... thus the reason you get an extra untap in the card game... Like thing from the adams fam... (anyone know if they are actually a goul family... I think so..) ~mage bob

-> : I believe the ability was meant to be (or at least should have -> been) : "unaffected by melee damage." This would make them actually -> useful. It is : also consistent with the Garou's healing ability, ie -> it is very difficult : to hurt a pack of werewolves. This doesn't at -> all make them better than : a Garou, since they lack all of his other -> abilities. -> Even that wouldn't be a true reflection, as ranged weapons [even DB'd -> guns] could do normal damage as they would to any other minion... IMnsHO, I would make the Werewolf Pack into a Rock Hydra. They cost X+2 blood to bring out, have X life, and do damage equal to whatever life they have at the time. (I.E. they strength of the pack depends on how many werewolves you call, and if you kill some the pack is weakened). Even then, the pack is little more than an expensive Hell Hound; with no bleed and without the ability to attack like a Garou, their only use is to block stealthless bleeds. Of course you could give them a laptop or a sport bike (funny mental image there..)

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Rutor's Hand allows you to prevent damage outside of strike resolution; >>this is not possible in general. This is because the superior versoin >>says the damage may be prevented. Sorry for not making that clear. >It only says that to override the "not preventable" text on inferior. No, it does not only say that to override the inferior. Damage is normally unpreventable outside of strike resolution; the inferior text reminds you of this (as do most cards that do damage without a strike). The superior text is meant to imply that you can prevent the rules with Fortitude cards and such, i.e. that it breaks the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]