Stealing blood versus Cost of playing cards in combat

On VTES-L, Buonocore, Stephen M wrote: > The discussion about "stealing blood" and the bomb reminds > me of another "timing" question that I forgot to ask about > ... Timing? Hey is this M:tG ??? :-) > > Here is the question, which actually occurred at the last > Jersey Jyhad League game: > > - Vampire A and Vampire B both have a capacity of 3 and > are full. > - Vampire A strikes with Theft of Vitae (to steal 2 blood) > - Vampire B strikes with Burning Wrath, which COSTS 3 > blood (to a +2 hand damage, aggravated)! > > Resolution (please let me know if I am correct): > - Vampire B's strike COST must be paid first, so he pays 3 > blood. This cost is played when the strike is announced (before moving to strike resolution). > - The strikes then resolve, which is where it gets ugly > for Vampire A... :-) > - Vampire A's strike "fizzles", since there is no blood to > steal... poor Tremere... :-) Correct. > - Vampire B's strike is severe. He inflicts 1 regular > point of damage, and 2 aggravated points of damage (the > base damage is not changed to aggravated) to A. He inflicts 3 aggravated damage. Burning wrath inflicts an amount of aggravated damage equal to the minion's base hand damage (his strength) plus one. > - Vampire A is in torpor with 1 blood. > - Vampire B is ready with 0 blood. Correct. -- LSJ (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 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

> > > - Vampire A is in torpor with 1 blood. > > > - Vampire B is ready with 0 blood. > > > > Correct. > > Shouldn't vamp A be in torpor with 0 blood? I thought after Jyhad changed > to Vampire, the rule changed so that the first point of aggro damage took a > blood off the vampire AND sent it to torpor. Burning Wrath gives vamp B > +2, so vamp A should lose all three blood and go to torpor, shouldn't it? BTW, I got this "rule change" info from a Duelist article discussing important changes from Jyhad to Vampire....I just double-checked the rulebook, and it looks like that Duelist article was wrong....and that vamp A should be in torpor with 1 blood.... KM

> > - Vampire A is in torpor with 1 blood. > > - Vampire B is ready with 0 blood. > > Correct. Shouldn't vamp A be in torpor with 0 blood? I thought after Jyhad changed to Vampire, the rule changed so that the first point of aggro damage took a blood off the vampire AND sent it to torpor. Burning Wrath gives vamp B +2, so vamp A should lose all three blood and go to torpor, shouldn't it? KM

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:45:09 GMT "Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That change has been reversed. A point (thypically referred to as "the first point") of agg damage done to a healthy (non-wounded, non-torporous) vamp is simply damage that cannot be healed and therefore "wounds" the vampire (sets him on his way to torpor). A point of agg damage done to an already-wounded vampire will burn him, forcing him to burn a blood to prevent that destruction. See the revised rules for more details. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).

> That change has been reversed. What was the reasoning behind changing it in the first place, and then changing it back to original? KM

[ quoted text not captured ] The first change was made in an attempt to simplify the rules. The second change was made to restore the original power level of aggravated damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <01beb34f$47e91b00$81a5...@dapatrin.riderlaw.com>, Kristyl Meth <dapa...@riderlaw.com> writes >What was the reasoning behind changing it in the first place, and then >changing it back to original? In the original Jyhad rules, consider the following situation: Ozmo runs into combat with Rufina Soledad, Ozmo on 6 blood and Rufina on 0. Ozmo plays Disguised Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow. He aims, he fires, Rufina goes to torpor, still on 0 blood. This is all well and good. The Ivory Bow has significant power, the ability to torporise, which is balanced by its lack of maneuver, its pool cost, its uniqueness and, latterly, Immortal Grapple screwing it over for all its worth. The "packetting" rules do not allow Ivory Bow to ever burn a vampire, though newer cards such as Mass Reality, under the Jyhad rules, would allow such. But now consider it under original V:TES rules: Ozmo aims, fires, Rufina is burned, because she had 0 blood to burn for the first point of aggravated damage. This is not quite so well and good. The Ivory Bows power has been significantly upped, but its downside has not been. The playtesting for Jyhad would have established the Ivory Bow as being quite reasonable, definitely powerful but not overly so. The rules change in V:TES quickly just threw that to the wall. Ivory Bow can burn, burn, burn. In *new* V:TES rules: Ozmo aims, fires, Rufina takes 1 point of aggravated damage, causing her to become wounded (meaning that she will go to torpor). She hasn't had to start burning blood for it yet, so she will *only* go to torpor. This is better. Whilst it is not as limiting as the original packetting rules in Jyhad, it stops random burning from a card that was never intended to burn a vampire. Consider also Pulled Fangs. Due to the packetting rules, this could never burn a vampire, even if you played multiple of it, in Jyhad. In V:TES, one of them could burn you. Now, Pulled Fangs can never burn you, but it will do damage. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

On VTES-L, colin gunning wrote: > "Buonocore, Stephen M" <sbuo...@LEHMAN.COM> wrote: > > If the theft moves the blood at the same time as the > > bomb why does the theft happen first leaving no blood > > to deal with the bomb damage. Still a little unclear > > about timing on this one. > > The easiest way to clear everything up is to go by the > rule the acting vampire goes first then the reacting. While true for most things, this rule doesn't apply to strike resolution. Strikes resolve simultaneously (unless one of the strikes is a Combat Ends, Dodge, or First Strike strike) [6.4.3.2]. > That way the bomb inflicts damage or blood is spent for a > strike , then the reacting vampire takes his turn with the > strike , spending blood or stealing blood. The final step > would be the acting takes damage first then the reacting > vampire follows. Blood is spent to pay the cost of a card when the card is played (except for Action cards). So the cost of a strike card is payed when the strike is announced (before any damage is allocated or any other strike effect is resolved). The acting minion announces his strike before the opposing minion, true. The acting and reacting minions take damage simultaneously. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. [ quoted text not captured ]